2013 (7) TMI 161 - CGOVT - Customs

Rebate Claim u/s 75 of the Customs Act goods are re-exported after re-packing and re-labelling - before exporting the said imported input, they had removed the original packing and labels of the foreign country and relabelled and affixed the said input with their factory s name and address and exported the same goods under claim of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on payment of Central Excise duty and education cess. - Held that - Assessee removed original packing and relabelled the goods without making any value addition. So drawback claim under Section 75 of Customs Act denied. However, applicant could have re-exported the goods under Section 74 and availed drawback benefit subject to compliance of provisions of Section 74 - matter should be considered and proceeded in the light of Hon ble Supreme Court s observations in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that the simple and plain reading of statute may be strictly construed without any intendment and any liberal interpretation - Further, Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. 1991 (9) TMI 162 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Hon ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Avis Electronics have conclusively opined that when provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom are not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. - Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of drawback claim for re-exported goods.
2. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions.
3. Application of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. Compliance with Sections 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involves a revision application filed against the rejection of a drawback claim for re-exported goods. The applicant had imported goods, re-labelled them, and exported them to a foreign buyer, seeking a duty drawback. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, stating it was not maintainable under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the revision application before the Central Government.

2. The applicant contended that the relabelling of imported goods constituted manufacturing, making them eligible for the drawback claim. They argued that the lower authorities failed to appreciate this aspect and misapplied the statutory provisions. They cited judgments to support their claim that the rejection lacked proper show cause notice and violated principles of natural justice.

3. The applicant further argued that the removal of original packing and relabelling should be considered as manufacturing under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They emphasized that the relabelling was done to make the goods marketable and should be construed as manufacturing, entitling them to the drawback claim.

4. The Central Government, after reviewing the case records and relevant orders, noted the dispute over legal interpretations of the applicable statute. The Government analyzed the provisions of Section 75 of the Customs Act, Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 29, and the compliance requirements under Sections 74 and 75. The Government concluded that the relabelling without adding value did not qualify as manufacturing under Chapter Note 10, and the applicant could have availed the drawback benefit under Section 74 if compliance requirements were met. Consequently, the revision application was rejected, upholding the order-in-appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of statutory provisions, the concept of manufacturing under Chapter Note 10, and the compliance requirements for availing drawback benefits under the Customs Act. The decision underscores the importance of meeting statutory criteria and the specific conditions for claiming duty drawbacks on re-exported goods.