9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided that Tribunal would have jurisdiction to decide an appeal relating to interest on drawback where the drawback was allowed by the Tribunal. I see no reason to take a different view in this case. I also notice that the appellants had initially approached the revision authority in the matter but their revision applications have not been considered saying that the said authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter - Decided in favour of assessee. The claim if any with regard to drawback arose only as a subsequent event to the export inasmuch as till the issue of the CESTAT’s order in favour of the appellants, the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy holding that the export itself did not take place h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... together. 3. At the outset, the learned DR raises a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear these appeals as these relate to grant of interest on drawback. He cites the decision of the Tribunal in the following cases :- (i) Mercury Exports Manufacturing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2009 (246) E.L.T. 646 (ii) Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 217 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Marvel Apparels v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 417 stating that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear these appeals. 5. After considering submissions from both sides on the prelimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the reasons for delay advanced by the ld. counsel, I condone the delay in filing both the appeals and allow both the miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay. 7. In both the cases, the lower appellate authority has held that the appellants become eligible for grant of drawback only by virtue of the Tribunal s order and therefore they cannot be allowed interest for delayed sanction of drawback prior to the date of the Tribunal s order. He has also held that the appellants had not produced the required documents as per Rule 13(2) of the Drawback Rules and for that reason also interest for the earlier period cannot be sanctioned. He has recorded the following while coming to the above finding :- In the instant appeal, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 and the relevant date for claiming interest under Sec. 75A is after expiry of one month from the date of receipt of abovesaid Hon ble CESTAT order and not for the earlier period. Further, the appellants have not produced the required documents as per Rule 13(2) of Drawback Rules. In absence of any such relevant required documents, the appellants are not eligible for interest for the period earlier to Hon ble CESTAT s order dated 24-6-2008. 8. I am of the view that both the reasons recorded by the lower appellate authority are sound and therefore his order rejecting the claim for interest for the period prior to the date of order of the Tribunal allowing drawback giving benefit of doubt to the appellants require no interference. 9. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
