2009 (3) TMI 394 - HC - Customs

Claim for drawback - The adjudicating authority having given a categorical finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the duty drawback claim for availing the benefit under the Notification No. 67/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998, particularly as the petitioner did not fall within the category of exporter who can claim the benefits under this notification and on the other hand having misrepresented facts and having claimed a wrong benefit, which was otherwise not available to the petitioner and the denial of benefit being not merely for the non-compliance of the procedural requirement of obtaining prior permission to get exported the material manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit on job work basis, but with or without such permission for the more important reason of the notification itself being not applicable to the petitioner - The revisional authority having bestowed its attention on facts and also having applied the relevant law which held the field at the relevant time No need or justification for interfering with impugned order passed by revisional authority - these writ petitions are rejected

Summary

Issues:
Withdrawal of Duty Drawback, Levy of Penalty, Appellate Commissioner's Order, Revision Petition before Central Government, Scope of Revision Petition, Interpretation of Legal Principles, Concession for Export Oriented Unit, Duty Drawback Claim, Review of Case Law, Impugned Order by Revisional Authority, Compliance with Notification for Duty Drawback.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the withdrawal of Duty Drawback and levy of penalties on two petitioners, one being a 100% Export Oriented Unit and the other a Domestic Tariff Area Unit. The original adjudication order was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, which was set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) but later restored by the Central Government in a revision petition. The petitioners challenged this adverse order through a writ petition.

The Appellate Commissioner had initially allowed the appeal and set aside the original order based on a decision of the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench. However, the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, disagreed with this decision and directed further pursuit of the matter. Subsequently, a revision petition was filed before the Central Government, which set aside the Appellate Commissioner's order and reinstated the original adjudication order, leading to the writ petition by the petitioners.

The petitioners argued that the revision petition before the Central Government was not tenable as it did not meet the criteria under Section 129DD of the Customs Act. They contended that the revisional authority's view on the concession for both units was incorrect and cited notifications allowing unutilized capacity in Export Oriented Units to be availed by other units for Duty Drawback claims. They also referenced Supreme Court cases to support their position.

The revisional authority, in its order, considered all aspects of the case and highlighted discrepancies in the Appellate Commissioner's decision, particularly regarding the definition of a manufacturer and the eligibility for Duty Drawback during the relevant period. The authority emphasized that the Duty Drawback claimed was not admissible under the relevant notification due to misrepresentation and non-compliance.

The court found that the revisional authority had correctly applied the law as per Supreme Court rulings and had thoroughly examined the facts of the case. It concluded that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order and rejected the writ petitions. The court emphasized that the subsequent decision of the Madras High Court cited by the petitioners did not impact the revisional authority's decision based on existing legal principles.

In summary, the judgment delves into the complex issues of Duty Drawback withdrawal, penalty imposition, appellate decisions, revision petitions, and compliance with legal notifications, ultimately upholding the revisional authority's order based on established legal principles and Supreme Court precedents.