9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o NTCL (National Textile Corporation Limited), Calcutta on 23/10/2002 and on the same day NTCL has submitted their report. The Department has sent further samples on 01/04/2003 to NIFT, Delhi which sent its Report on 02/04/2003. Based on PMV estimate given by NTCL, Calcutta, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant seeking to deny the Drawback claims filed by them. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Drawback Claims. Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed their Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its Order No. S-772/A/500/KOL/06 dated 25/05/2006 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to grant Cross Examination of the persons conducting sample testing of the consignments. The Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the testing carried out by NIFT, Delhi, he points out that the samples were sent to them vide Department's letter dated 01/04/2003. Immediately on the next day i.e. 02/04/2003, NIFT has given their Test Report. Here also the procedure followed by NIFT to come to their conclusion is questionable. Only on account of these doubts, they have sought the Cross Examination of the persons conducting the test for coming to their conclusions. He points out that this cross-examination sought was not granted to them and this Bench vide their Order dated 25/5/2006 remanded the matter only to grant the Cross Examination of such persons. He submits that on the ground that the test was conducted by a panel of persons and not by an individual and such per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mittedly, no samples were drawn by the Department nor any samples were tested by NTCL or NIFT. In such a case, the Department could not have relied on the Test Report of NTCL/NIFT in respect of second lot of Shipping Bills to deny the Draw Back claim. In respect of first set of 17 Shipping Bills, on this count itself, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the Drawback claim of Rs. 38,63,529/- subject to the condition specified at Paragraph 10 below. 6. In respect of 16 Shipping Bills, as rightly pointed out by the Appellant, both the testing agencies have completed the test and also issued the Test Report in a record time of 24hrs/48hrs. This gives cause of some kind of doubt as to whether proper procedure was followed before coming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings in respect of all the 33 consignments. This fact has not been verified at the Adjudication level. Only for the limited purpose of verifying the BRC in respect of the 33 Consignments, we remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority. If on verification the fact is found to be correct, the Appellant should be granted the refund of the drawbacks in respect of both the sets of exports as per law. As the original Appellant has been substituted by the present appellant by way of the Misc. Order cited supra, the refund amount is to be granted to her. 11. The Appellant has also prayed that they would be eligible for interest on the drawback which is being paid to them now since they have filed the drawback claim in 2002 itself. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
