9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondents : Mr. J. Vasu Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The Petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order No.239/2021-CUS (SZ) / ASRA/MUMBAI dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Respondent under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. By the Impugned Order the Revision Application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the Order in Appeal No.Cus.No.115/2010 dated 01.02.2010 has been allowed. The Petitioner had exported consignment of woven woolen garments and had classified the same and had claimed the benefit of Duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962under Serial No.62.01 of the Duty Draw Back Schedule 1999-2000. 3. After the Duty Drawback was sanctioned to the Petitioner, the Department issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner to take the point of bar of limitation also, face the enquiry and proceed further. The respondents are directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and also the point of bar of limitation. If the point of limitation taken by the petitioner is sustainable in law, that has to be decided first. The respondents are directed to give the fresh dates of hearing. No costs. Consequently, the above WPMP is dismissed." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the 5th Respondent herein viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Draw Back passed Order in Original No.7606 of 2008 on 15.04.2008 whereby the Petitioner was called upon to pay back the Duty drawback that was sanctioned to the Petitioner on the export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Application). As per the order of the Hon'ble Court, matter is again being re-examined. 10. Government observes that the respondent has claimed drawback on export of goods which were classified by them under S.S No. 62.01. It is further noted that S.S. No 62.09 covers woollen garments namely woollen suits/trousers/blazers/jackets excluding those made of shoddy fabrics/yarn. The items exported by the respondent i.e 'Woven woollen ladies vests' does not fall in S.S No 62.09 and there is no heading in the Drawback Schedule 1999-2000 which covers the subject exports of the respondent. 11. Government notes that the CBEC vide Circular No 55/99 dated 25.08.1999 has clarified as under:- "since doubts has been raised by the fie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instant circular is clearly a clarificatory circular. 14. Government notes that issue clarified in the CBEC circular dated 25.08.1999 is akin to the issue in the instant case and justifies the rejection of the drawback claim in the impugned order in original which was set aside by the Appellate Authority 15. Government notes that the Appellate Authority has erred in holding the the Circular cannot be given retrospective effect and allowing the appeal of the respondent. 16. In light of the above discussion, Government observes that the Order- in-Appeal No.C. Cus No.115/2010 dated 01.02.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai is not sustainable and therefore the same is set aside. The impugned order in original is rest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
