9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 475 - HC - Customs100% EOU - Duty Drawback on bulk tea in question procured by it from the bulk tea manufacturer and supplier which has admittedly paid the Excise Duty - Existence of valid reason to deny drawback to the petitioner or not - HELD THAT - The impugned order of the revisional authority dated 20th December, 2019 is not sustainable both in law and in fact and is liable to be set aside. Revisional authority while passing the impugned order on the revisional application of the respondents customs authority setting aside the order of the Appellate authority which had allowed drawback in favour of the petitioner, has taken into consideration the ground which was no part of show cause notice or adjudication order or order of the Appellate authority. Issue of concession by the petitioner s representative before the adjudicating authority, raised by the respondents customs authority for the first time in course of hearing of this writ petition which was neither before the Appellate authority nor before the revisional authority nor in the affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition with regard to petitioner s statutory and legal right of availing the benefit of Drawback in question on the basis of aforesaid notification dated 22nd November, 2001, issued by the DGFT authority, is not sustainable since there can be concession on fact and not on law and further petitioner has not accepted the same and has challenged the order-in-original before the Appellate authority. Petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of Drawback under the Notification No. 39(RE-01)/1997-2002, New Delhi dated 22nd November, 2001 issued by the DGFT (Government of India, Ministry of Finance) issued in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 4.11 of the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002, relating to Duty Drawback for the period from 01.06.2000 to 31.03.2001, since it has fulfilled all the criteria of the aforesaid notification which has statutory force. The petition is disposed of by upholding the order of the Appellate authority and setting aside the impugned order of the revisional authority. No order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous order of the revisional authority concerning duty drawback claims. 2. Justification of the revisional authority's order setting aside the appellate authority's decision. 3. Sustainability of the respondents' new submission regarding the petitioner's concession. 4. Legality and validity of the revisional authority's order against the petitioner's duty drawback claims. Summary: Issue 1: Erroneous Order of the Revisional Authority The petitioner, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), challenged the revisional authority's order dated December 20, 2019, which denied their duty drawback claims on 22 shipping bills filed between June 2000 and August 2000. The petitioner argued that the revisional authority's decision disregarded Notification No. 39(RE-01)/1997-2002, which allowed EOUs to claim duty drawback on bulk tea procured from manufacturers who paid excise duty but did not claim the drawback themselves. Issue 2: Justification of the Revisional Authority's Order The revisional authority set aside the appellate authority's order, which had favored the petitioner, on grounds not included in the original show cause notice or adjudication order. This was deemed improper as the revisional authority introduced new grounds not previously contested. Issue 3: Sustainability of Respondents' New Submission The respondents argued for the first time in court that the petitioner's representative had conceded to return the drawback amount during adjudication, which should disqualify the petitioner from claiming the drawback. The court found this unsustainable as it was not part of the original proceedings or documented in the affidavit-in-opposition. Issue 4: Legality and Validity of the Revisional Authority's Order The court determined that the revisional authority's order was not sustainable in law or fact. The petitioner was entitled to the duty drawback under the relevant DGFT notifications, having met all criteria. The court emphasized that the revisional authority's decision was outside the scope of the original show cause notice and thus invalid. Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by upholding the appellate authority's order and setting aside the revisional authority's impugned order. The petitioner was entitled to the duty drawback as per the statutory notifications. No costs were ordered.
|
