1994 (11) TMI 148 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Review of duty drawback order-in-appeal allowing supplementary claims under sub-serial No. 2707; Interpretation of Circular No. 9/92 and its applicability to different customs notifications; Application of Rule 3 of Drawback Rules in the context of duty exemptions under different notifications; Consideration of the concept of 'manufacture' under Central Excise Law in relation to drawback rules.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a review proposal initiated by the Government based on a Collector of Customs' proposal for the review of an order-in-appeal allowing 12 supplementary claims of duty drawback under sub-serial No. 2707. The appellate authority had permitted these claims by holding that duty elements on duty-free inputs like tags and labels fixed on exported garments should not be deducted from the drawback amount. The Collector contended that fixing labels and tags to garments does not amount to 'manufacture' under Central Excise Law.

The respondents argued that Circular No. 9/92 only referred to customs Notification 219/89, not to tags and labels imported under Notification 150/80, asserting differences in the conditions and payment requirements of the two notifications. They maintained that Circular No. 9/92's provisions were specific to Notification 219/89 and could not be applied to other cases.

The Government examined the case and clarified that Circular No. 9/92 merely endorsed the practice of Bangalore Customs regarding deductions under Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules, without introducing new provisions. It emphasized the independent application of Rule 3, irrespective of Circular No. 9/92.

The judgment highlighted that the concept of 'manufacture' under Central Excise Law does not directly apply to drawback rules. It reasoned that for drawback rules, 'manufacture' should encompass ancillary steps like packing, considering the duties paid on materials used for packing exported goods when determining drawback rates.

Ultimately, the Government concluded that deductions ordered by the original authority were correct, emphasizing the application of Rule 3(1) independently of Circular No. 9/92. The order-in-appeal allowing the supplementary claims was set aside, restoring the original rejection of these claims.