2014 (11) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Duty drawback claim - Wrong application of claim - Held that - In this case duty drawback claim has been rejected only on the premise that instead of applying under Rule 7 of duty drawback claim Rules, they have applied under Rule 6. The similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Cummins (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Pune reported in 2012 (6) TMI 432 - CESTAT, Mumbai wherein this Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the application filed under Rule 6 by the appellant under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Therefore, following the decision of this Tribunal, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the applications filed by the appellant under Rule 7 instead Rule 6 of the said Rules and sanction their eligible duty drawback claims. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of duty drawback claim.
2. Maintainability of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.
3. Application of Rule 6 instead of Rule 7 for duty drawback claim.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of denial of duty drawback claim by the appellants. The appellants had exported goods and filed an application for claiming duty drawback under Rule 6 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, at a rate higher than 20%. However, their claim was rejected as they did not apply under Rule 7 of the said Rules. The Tribunal noted that the appeal lies before them as per Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and held that the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of duty drawback is maintainable before the Tribunal.

2. The issue of maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was raised during the proceedings. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outline the orders against which an appeal lies before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no bar in entertaining the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of duty drawback. Therefore, it was held that the appeal lies before the Tribunal and is maintainable.

3. Another issue addressed in the judgment was the application of Rule 6 instead of Rule 7 for the duty drawback claim. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue arose and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to consider the application filed under Rule 6 under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Following the precedent, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the applications filed by the appellants under Rule 7 instead of Rule 6 and to sanction their eligible duty drawback claims. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellants, directing a reconsideration of their duty drawback claims under the appropriate rule.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the denial of duty drawback claim, the maintainability of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and the application of Rule 6 instead of Rule 7 for duty drawback claims. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in accordance with the applicable rule.