9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty on the said goods, later on the claim of duty `free' and again claim was made to 50% as apparent from two cancellations made in the bill of entry. It also appears that in the second instance they had claimed duty free under DEEC Scheme when they give reference to it in the same ink while claiming the duty free concession. Ultimately the goods were cleared on payment of 50% of duty on 14th Jan., 1994. Later on, the appellants filed a refund claim in May, 1994 claiming the benefit of Notification No. 159/90-Cus. which gives the benefit of duty free concessions for materials imported against advance licence. It is this claim of the appellants which has been rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that they did not make the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome instructions issued to them by the Drawback Directorate of the Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.' The action on the part of the customs and the Directorate of Drawback is stated to be against the express provision made in para 121 of the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-97 which permits duty-free licence-holder to issue a letter of authority to his supporting manufacturer whose name is endorsed in the DEEC book, to enable the supporting manufacturer to open letter of credit, make remittances for importing the goods, arrange movement and to clear the imported goods through customs. DGFT and the Review Committee should look into it". 4. It also refers to a Circular dated 8-11-1993 of the Commissioner of Drawback advising the Customs author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this is a hyper-technical view of the matter taken by the lower authorities. A substantive benefit should not be denied merely on such a technical view and particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case when a circular of the Directorate of Drawback was in existence disallowing the concession under advance licence and circular was later on withdrawn. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Regarding the technical aspects of the whole issue he relies in the case of SKF Bearings v. C.C. - 1998 (79) ECR 15. 6. Opposing the contention, ld. JDR Shri S. Srivastava submits that it is the condition of the notification that the claim was to be made at the time of clearance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the light of the circular that all this confusion perhaps arose, not claiming, claiming and not claiming the concession again. Later on, this has not been made the basis of denial of Notification 159/90-Cus. This plea was also taken by the appellant, as is apparent from the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector when its states as follows :- "However duty free benefit was not allowed on the 5th consignment, possible because of some instructions from the Drawback Directorate not to accept letter of authority in favour of supporting manufacturer. Since the goods were incurring heavy demurrage, they cleared the goods on payment of duty." Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the appellants did not cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
