9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (BRU) there was a discrepancy in respect of description of goods, number of shipping bills, etc. Accordingly, the applicant approached the BRU, seeking correction in the original brand rate letters. The BRU issued various letters correcting the original brand rate letter issued in respect of some of the subject shipping bills. 2.2 The applicants, after the receipt of the said amendment letters, once again approached the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Section, DIGHI, Pune and filed the letters fixing the amount of brand rate on different dates. The last letter was filed on May 28, 2008. The office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Drawback Section DIGHI, Pune, however did not acknowledge the receipt of the drawback claims. The BRL was issued in respect of 2 shipping bills Nos. 4164691 and 7717467 filed with Jawahar Customs House, Nhava Sheva and ICD Dighi respectively. The Commissionerate Nhava Sheva by order dated Jan. 24, 2008 allowed the drawback claim relating to Shipping Bill No. 4164691 nearly after 18 months after the issue of brand rate letter. It appears that no further proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals) who after due consideration of the submissions as made therein, rejected the appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 4.1 That drawback claimed by the applicants are rejected on the sole ground that in terms of clause 3(d)(ii) of Circular No. 14/2003, dated 6-3-2003, the letters fixing the amount of drawback for each of 22 shipping bills were submitted to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs after expiry of one year from the date of issue of the said letters fixing the amount of drawback. This reason is entirely erroneous and on total misreading of the said Circular. 4.2 That both the authorities below proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the letters fixing the amount of drawback is valid for a period of one year in terms of clause 3(d)(ii) of Circular No. 14/2003, dated 6-3-2003 and the applicants were required to file the said letters fixing the amount of the drawback within one year. That in terms of Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules, a triplicate copy of the shipping bill file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Schedule is superseded) as the All Industry Rates of Drawback are liable to change normally with effect from 1st of June, but in such cases further extension in the validity of the brand rate letter may be granted up to 31st August in accordance with the present practice, on written requests to that effect by the exporters. 4.5 It is clear from the aforesaid that before the issue of the said circular, the practice of the board was to restrict the validity of the brand rate letter up to 31st May, every year as new drawback schedule come into effect from June. It is not in dispute that the amount of drawback in the present case is fixed for each shipping bills and as such there is no validity period of the letter fixing the amount of drawback. It is not in dispute that the exports are made by the applicants. There is no dispute as to the amount of drawback. In these circumstances, denial of drawback is clearly invalid and without jurisdiction. That the case is well supported by the fact that in their own case, the Nhava Sheva Commissionerate has granted drawback claim in relation to Shipping Bill No. 4164691, dated 24-3-2006.That a common BRL dated 29-9-2006 for shipping bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of the department relating to the validity of BRLs is assumed to be correct even then BRLs issued in respect of shipping bill Nos. 7709640, 7712768, 7712911 and 7714724 were submitted within one year from the date of issue. That following are the details of the shipping bills and their corresponding brand rate letters and the date on which they were filed are given herein below : Shipping Bill Nos. Date of Brand Rate Letters Date of Filing 7709640 29-5-2007 10-6-2008 7712768 8-6-2007 10-5-2008 7712911 7714724 It is clear from the aforesaid that the letters fixing drawback in respect of the four shipping bills were filed within a period of one year from the receipt of the brand rate letter and therefore drawback in respect of the said shipping bills could not have been rejected. Without prejudice to the aforesaid and in any event the show cause notice itself records that the letters fixing the amount of drawback in respect of above shipping bills were submitted in the office of the Assistant Commissioner from time to time till 28th May, 2008. Even if the 28th May, 2008 is taken as the date on which the letter fixing the amount of drawback for the aforesaid f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sic and core issue to be decided herein that about the interpretetion and thus applicability of clause 3(d)(ii) of CBEC Circular No. 14/2003, dated 6-3-2003 which reads as under : "Validity of Brand Rate Letter : The brand rate may be applied/fixed either in respect of Shipping Bills or for a period of time with a quantity restriction (which is required to be fixed on the basis of availability of the duty paid inputs). Generally, the validity of the brand rate letters may be restricted up to one year. However, in respect of cases wherein brand rate is calculated taking into account the All Industry Rate of Drawback admissible for any of the inputs, the validity of such brand rate letters may be restricted to upto one month from the date on which the validity of All Industry Rate ceases to be effective." Government notes that the above para of the Circular provides and binds all so fixed Brand Rate letters as valid for a maximum period of one year only. This (and all such) CBEC Circulars are held as a binding for everyone in M/s. Dhiren Chemicals Industry Ltd. case [2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. Government further notes that the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
