2013 (3) TMI 325 - CGOVT - Customs

Drawback claims - Drawback claims rate schedule and supporting documents were not submitted - Dolomite & Iron Ore which are the main ingredients for the manufacture of the exported goods has been procured without payment of duty - Limit in filing the claim - Held that - Drawback claims filed by the applicant appeared admissible as the respondent satisfies the provision of Rule 13. - The respondent had also claimed the drawback at all Industry rate as per Drawback Schedule and it was also established that the Triplicate copy of the Shipping Bill for export of goods under a claim for DBK shall be deemed to be a claim for drawback filed. - Also there is no provision in Drawback Schedule Notification to make difference between primary or secondary constituent inputs/material to consider drawback on final products as one to one co-relation is essentially not required. As per Rule 13 the date on which customs officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation, itself is a claim of drawback and it does not prescribe any time-limit for filing drawback claim as contended by department. Revision application by the revenue rejected being devoid of merit. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Admissibility of drawback claims
- Compliance with filing rules for drawback claims
- Requirement of duty paid inputs for claiming drawback

Admissibility of Drawback Claims:
The case involved a revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise against an Order-in-Appeal regarding drawback claims filed by a company engaged in export business. The original adjudicating authority rejected the drawback claims due to discrepancies and lack of supporting documents. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the appeal, stating that the company had provided documents supporting duty payments on inputs used in manufacturing the exported goods. The revision application argued that the exported goods were manufactured using materials procured without duty payment, making the drawback claims inadmissible. The government observed that the company satisfied the provisions of filing rules and had produced documents supporting duty payments, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) and rejecting the revision application.

Compliance with Filing Rules for Drawback Claims:
The department contended that the company failed to comply with Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules regarding the time limit for filing drawback claims. The government, however, noted that Rule 13 does not prescribe a time limit for filing drawback claims, as the date of customs officer's order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation itself constitutes a claim for drawback. Therefore, the contention of the department regarding non-compliance with filing rules was deemed invalid by the government.

Requirement of Duty Paid Inputs for Claiming Drawback:
The department argued that the main ingredients for the finished goods were procured without duty payment, making the drawback claims inadmissible. However, the government observed that the company claimed drawback at the All Industry Rate as per the Drawback Schedule and had provided documents supporting duty payments on dutiable items used in manufacturing. The government found no requirement for a one-to-one correlation between duty paid inputs and final products for claiming drawback, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeal) and rejecting the department's contention.

---