TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nments of sanitary-wares under Shipping Bills; that they wanted to avail benefit of DFRC in respect of their exports which has been refused by the Customs Authorities as the Certificate from Central Excise officers listing the inputs used in the manufacture of the export product was required; that in these circumstances they were forced to file free Shipping Bills; that the Board, under Circular No. 6/2003, dated 28-1-2003 has clarified that in all those cases, where the exporters were not allowed to file Shipping Bills under a particular export promotion scheme and had to export goods against free Shipping Bills, conversion of Shipping Bills would be allowed by the Commissioner subject to the following conditions - (i) On the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the case of Palmtech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 492 (T) that "the Collector's Order, without considering this Board's Circular is bad in law. It is well-settled now. The Department cannot argue against the Board's instructions"; that there is no dispute that the sanitary-wares were exported; that as per the Standard Input-Output Norms, Zirconium Silicate/Opacifier is allowed to be imported against export of sanitary-ware; that as the impugned goods do not appear in Para 4.31 of the Handbook of Procedures, there is no requirement to establish by Test report or otherwise that the said chemicals were actually used in the sanitary-ware exported; that as per the practice, DFRC for Import of Zirconi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... version of Shipping Bill is to be allowed subject to the conditions that on the basis of available export document, etc. the fact of use of inputs is satisfactorily proved in the resultant export product for the purpose of allowing conversion into DFRC Scheme; that this condition is not satisfied by the Appellants. In reply the learned Advocate mentioned that all the documents are now being filed by the Appellants. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Senior Departmental Representative that Appeal is not maintainable under the Customs Act since the Appellants are seeking the benefit of DFRC Scheme which is provided by way of a Notification issued under Section 25 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
