9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l provisions. The only legal provision relied upon is Rule 3 of the drawback Rules. We agree with the interpretation to this Rule given by the Board in Circular 16/2009-Cus. The argument that this interpretation is applicable from date of issue of Circular 16/2009-Cus. Is repugnant to logic because the Rule has remained the same except for amendment on 13-7-2006, to take care of incidence and rebate of Service Tax - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) Versus KULTAR EXPORT [2012 (10) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - order, disallowing Central Excise portion of the drawback, in terms of the adjudicating authority and revisional order is hereby set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 1886/2013, C.M. APPL. 3597/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso rely upon an investigation report to suggest that the writ petitioners did not satisfy the concerned authority that in fact the inputs were duty-paid. The respondents state that the Circular of 2009 is prospective. 4. The petitioners have in these proceedings relied upon a decision of this Court Commissioner of Customs (Export) v. Kultar Export 2013 (288) ELT 187 (Del). The Court had then examined the very same issue, i.e. the permissibility of benefit of duty element in the cost of inputs of such merchant exporters. The Court had considered the relevant Circulars dated 64/1998 dated 01.09.1998; 54/2001-Cus dated 19.10.2001 as well as another Circular No. 08/2003 over and above Circular No.16/2009-Cus. In that case, this Court had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for excise portion also and after lapse of five years to one year, the drawback amounts granted on various shipping bills have been demanded to be paid back. There is also an argument that this Appellant is being singled out for such treatment. This argument is relevant not in the sense whether a wrong can be corrected in the hands of one when others go scot free but in the context that there was a bona fide relief because of the circulars from 2001 onwards that they were eligible for the impugned drawback. 14. We are not inclined to confirm such huge liability for past periods based on Circulars which were in the knowledge of the department and which were not implemented. We would like to rely more on the legal provisions. The only lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
