9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction over cases relating to payment of drawback and recovery of excess/erroneously paid drawback 2. Nature and scope of the impugned corrigendum issued on 20-6-1997 Jurisdiction over cases relating to payment of drawback and recovery of excess/erroneously paid drawback: The Revision Application was filed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the demand of excess drawback paid/sanctioned under the Drawback Schedule. The Commissioner (A) allowed the appeal, stating that the rate of drawback prevailing on the date of export would prevail, emphasizing on the legal statutory right not being taken away by retrospective changes. The applicant Commissioner argued that the corrigendum dated 20-6-1997 corrected an error and should apply to pending drawback claims. The Respondents contended that the recovery of erroneous payment did not fall under Revision as it did not invoke specific Customs Act sections or rules. The Government analyzed its jurisdiction, noting that payment and recovery of drawback were interconnected, with recovery being a consequence of erroneous payment. It was concluded that the Revisionary Authority had the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the payment of drawback. Nature and scope of the impugned corrigendum issued on 20-6-1997: The corrigendum issued on 20-6-1997 altered the drawback rate specified in the Drawback Schedule, changing it from 13% to 9% subject to different maximum amounts. The Government determined that the corrigendum, being a substantive change and not a clerical mistake, constituted an amendment to the original notification. As the drawback scheme is an export promotion scheme, any subsequent change in rates would be considered an amendment, operating prospectively unless specifically made retrospective. Therefore, the applicable rate of drawback in this case was deemed to be the one specified in the original notification dated 30-5-1997, making the issue of recovery of excess payment redundant. The Revision Application was allowed based on these findings. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional aspect of cases related to payment and recovery of drawback, emphasizing the interconnected nature of payment and recovery. It also analyzed the nature and impact of the corrigendum issued on 20-6-1997, determining its status as an amendment and its prospective application. The decision allowed the Revision Application, highlighting the importance of adhering to the original notification's specified rates in the context of duty drawback schemes.
|
