9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1248 - AT - CustomsRejection of request for conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another i.e. from drawback of DEPB Scheme - applicability of time limitation for such conversion or not - HELD THAT - The authorities below have rejected the request of the appellant for conversion of shipping bill from duty drawback to DEPB by relying upon the Circular No. 04/2004 dated 16.01.2004 which stands substituted by another Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 which allows the conversion of shipping bill from one scheme to another. Further, it is found that in this Circular itself, it is provided that in both drawback scheme and DEPB scheme, the level of examination is the same which shows that the request of the appellant should have been allowed by the authorities below, but both the authorities have rejected the request without considering the Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010. The request for conversion was made within six months from the date of export whereas under Circular No. 36/2010 conversion is allowed if the request for the same is filed within three months from the date of let export order. The said condition of prescribed time limit of three months has been set-aside by various courts including the Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS ICD, GRFL VERSUS MRS. BECTOS FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD. 2023 (3) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT . The impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is set-aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The appeal involves the rejection of the appellant's request for conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based on Circular No. 04/2004 dated 16.01.2004, despite the issuance of a new Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 allowing such conversion. Facts: The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Milk Products, exported goods to Germany under the Drawback Scheme instead of the DEPB Scheme, resulting in a lower rate of drawback. Upon realizing the error, the appellant applied for the conversion of shipping bills from drawback to DEPB under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The request was initially rejected by the Respondent, and subsequently by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based on Circular No. 04/2004 dated 16.01.2004, which was later substituted by Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 allowing such conversions. Arguments: The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it relied on an outdated Circular, whereas Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 permits the conversion of shipping bills between schemes. The counsel highlighted that the time limit of three months for conversion under Circular No. 36/2010 was unreasonable and had been set aside by various courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant was willing to return the drawback benefits availed, as per the submissions made. Decision: After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the authorities had erred in rejecting the conversion request based on the old Circular. The Tribunal noted that Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 allows for such conversions, and the appellant had made the request within a reasonable timeframe. Additionally, the Tribunal cited precedents where conversion between schemes was permitted under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 20.04.2011 and allowed the appellant's appeal for the conversion of shipping bills from the Drawback Scheme to the DEPB Scheme, emphasizing the applicability of Circular No. 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010 and the absence of a time limit under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for such conversions.
|
