9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parts imported by them which had been used in the manufacture of coloured T.V. sets exported by them. They had originally claimed drawback of duty on such exports but what was sanctioned to them as drawback was only on account of the Customs duty paid on the imported goods and the Central Excise duty paid on the indigenously procured items. Their contention before the authorities below was that the element of countervailing duty paid on the imported goods had not been included in the drawback rates. They had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Finance and got a reply from them that in fixing the drawback rates the element of countervailing duty paid on the imported components had not been taken into consideration. It was then that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Scheme. He supported the impugned order. 3. I have taken note of the submissions of both the sides. I have perused the record. The facts of the case as have come out in the order of the authorities below and which were referred to during the hearing of the present appeal indicate that the appellant has turned to relief available under Rule 57F(4) as currently in force after having lost the case for benefit of drawback on exported goods manufactured with imported components. It is the contention that the drawback amount fixed by the Ministry of Finance had not taken into account the countervailing duty portion relating to the imported components. Since they were not initially contemplating any claim of Modvat on account of such countervai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and it related to component parts of other electronics of products which were exported. I find that though that appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision after hearing them as the impugned order had been passed ex parte, the Bench also took note of the submissions made about the entitlement to refund under Rule 57F(4) read with Notification 85/87 and certain Tribunal decisions including the one in Chamundi Steel Re-rolling Mills v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 561. That was also a case where the question of availment of Modvat benefit arose at a subsequent stage and the failure to file declaration under Rule 57G at the initial stage was held to be condonable. Following the afore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
