TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Annexure - XII to the writ petition) by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, I.C.D., Moradabad (respondent no. 3). (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (v) to award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and claims to be a Government recognised export house. It has been allotted Import and Export Code No. B00588074926. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of handicrafts made of brass artwares, iron artwares, copper artwares, galvanised artwares and other Indian handicrafts. For the purpose of making export of these goods, the petitioner had imported electrical components (fittings) under the scheme, known as, Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (hereinafter referred to as "the DEEC"). The Customs authorities exempted the duties on import of electrical components as it is a Government recognised export house. The petitioner had claimed duty drawback on brass scrap and other items. It had exported some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad, under Section 128 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 22-9-1999, has allowed the appeals with the observation that in the case of duty free licence, the drawback shall be available in respect of any duty paid material as provided in Para 70-A of the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97. The order dated 22-9-1999 was challenged by the Department by filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. As the appeal was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the Act, the application for condonation of delay filed along with the memorandum of appeal was taken up by the Tribunal and it being not satisfied with the explanation for the delay, furnished by it, declined to condone the delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 10-8-2000. After the dismissal of the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner, ICD, Moradabad, vide order dated 15-11-2000, asked the petitioner to submit relevant papers for finalisation of pending drawback claim. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Department had filed a revision against the order of the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to him, the goods exported is more of other matters other than electrical fittings as such the petitioner is entitled for drawback on the materials used, which have been procured indigenously. He further submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), dated 22-9-1999, has become final and, therefore, the respondents are bound to give effect to the said order and make payment of the drawback claim. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the amount of drawback is to be computed in terms of the duty paid and if the petitioner has used indigenous materials in the manufacture and export of items, it is not entitled to claim any drawback. He referred to Section 75 of the Act and the Rules to emphasize that the rate of drawback is in respect of which the duty chargeable on the imported raw materials or excisable materials has been paid. According to him, in respect of indigenous raw materials, the petitioner has not furnished any proof of the duty having been paid and, therefore, it is not entitled to drawback. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 22-9-1999, has hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.N.C. Construction Company Ltd. v. State of UP. and others, 2002 UPTC 262, has held that it is a well settled legal position that the Revenue officers are bound by the decision of the Appellate Authority. The Trade Tax Tribunal being the Appellate Authority, its order is binding upon the Assessing. Authority and the Revenue who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 8. As laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above and this Court in the case of M/s. P.N.C. Constructions Company Ltd. (supra), the respondents are bound by the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cannot ignore the same. Any order issued contrary to the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained. We further find that under Section 75(1A) of the Act the Central Government has been empowered to declare any material which is more than the total quantity of like material, that has been used in the goods manufactured, processed or on which any operation has been carried out in India and exported outside India, then the quantity of particular material imported into India be deemed to be imported material for the purpose of sub-section (1). Sub-section (1A) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
