9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1052 - HC - CustomsConversion of Shipping Bill under DEEC Scheme to Drawback Scheme to avail export benefit - The CESTAT in the impugned order mentions that the Commissioner denied the conversion as CBEC Circular No. 4 of 2004 dated 16.01.2004 permitted such conversion only when benefit under Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Scheme (DEEC Scheme) is denied by DGFT/ Ministry of Commerce or Customs Authorities. Held that - May be, the Appellant had two advance licenses which must be putting normally under an obligation to use raw material to be imported duty free on its basis towards the manufacture of finished product to be exported. If the raw material is not imported, there is probably no loss to the appellant. No arguments to show any such deprivation or injury are advanced. Question of drawback will also arise, if there is actual import of material & then an export of finished product manufactured using that material. Other two ARE1 in respect of Export 3 & 4 are not produced. If the drawback in all three ARE1 was restricted to the excise portion of finished product only, then said proportionate drawback or rebate could have been received back in cash on same lines as per rebate cheque for ₹ 2,32,848/dated 27.8.2002. It may not have been necessary to seek any advance license against it. No rebate is perhaps possible for imported raw material used to manufacture exported finished products. All these facts could have been verified from the terms of the documents had the appellant produced the advance licenses on record. We feel that here when the facts are not clear, this aspect can not be gone into. The Appellant ought to have raised a specific question of law on such facts. No question of law regarding the permissibility of conversion of advance licenses into a drawback facility in present facts has been specifically raised. - Appellants have failed to raise any substantial question of law in this Appeal. - Appeal dimissed - Decided against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 4 of 2004 dated 16.01.2004 to the appellant's case. 2. Relevance of CBEC Circular No. 10/2003-CUS dated 12.05.2003. 3. Consideration of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. 4. Validity of conversion of DEEC Shipping Bill to Drawback Shipping Bill based on documentary evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of CBEC Circular No. 4 of 2004 dated 16.01.2004: The appellant contested the application of Circular No. 4 of 2004, arguing it should not apply retrospectively to their conversion request filed on 20.08.2003. The court noted that the appellant sought to avoid the retrospective application of the 2004 circular while attempting to benefit from Circular No. 10/2003-CUS dated 12.05.2003. The court concluded that the provisions in Rule 12, which came into force on 13.07.2006, were clarificatory in nature and thus applicable to the appellant's case, aiming to prevent double benefits. 2. Relevance of CBEC Circular No. 10/2003-CUS dated 12.05.2003: The appellant argued that Circular No. 10/2003-CUS, which relaxed the requirement of rejection of one Export Promotion Benefit Scheme by DGFT/Customs, should apply. The court found that the appellant's situation did not meet the conditions specified in Circular No. 6 of 2003, which was amended by Circular No. 10/2003-CUS. The court emphasized that the appellant had not filed Free Shipping Bills and thus did not fall under the exceptions provided in the circulars. 3. Consideration of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995: The court examined Rule 12, which mandates that exporters declare necessary particulars on the Shipping Bill to determine eligibility for drawback. The court noted that the appellant had not complied with these requirements and failed to produce original advance licenses. The court held that the Commissioner correctly applied the rule, emphasizing that the circular dated 16.01.2004 was clarificatory and applicable to pending applications. 4. Validity of conversion of DEEC Shipping Bill to Drawback Shipping Bill based on documentary evidence: The court scrutinized the appellant's documentary evidence, including ARE1 forms, Shipping Bills, and advance licenses. It noted discrepancies in the quantities mentioned in the documents and the appellant's failure to produce original advance licenses. The court found that the appellant's financial inability to use the advance licenses did not justify the conversion request. The court also highlighted that the appellant did not raise specific questions of law regarding the permissibility of conversion based on the facts presented. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant failed to raise any substantial question of law and did not demonstrate that the Commissioner's findings were perverse. The appellant's request for conversion was found to be unsupported by the applicable legal provisions and documentary evidence.
|
