9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 on 22 December 2010 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced bank realisation certificates evidencing the realisation of export proceeds within the period stipulated. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 27 January 2011 and claimed that its buyers had sought extension of time for making payment in view of the slump in the market and also submitted 9 bank realisation certificates evidencing repatriation of the sale proceeds. The Adjudicating Officer by an order dated 18 August 2012 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.29,92,513/- under Rule 16-A together with interest on the ground that though the petitioner was paid the amount of drawback against 9 shipping bills, it had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production of evidence of realisation of export proceeds within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice and where the exporter does not produce such evidence within the said period of (thirty days, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be) shall pass an order to recover the amount of drawback paid to the claimant and the exporter shall repay the amount so demanded within (thirty days) of the receipt of the said order: Provided that where a part of the sale proceeds has been realised, the amount of drawback to be recovered shall be the amount equal to that portion of the amount of drawback paid which bears the same proportion as the portion of the sale proceeds not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Kaur Bajwa Vs. Director (Drawback), Department of Revenue1, the Delhi High Court has held that even if an extension is granted by the Reserve Bank ex post facto, the drawback, which has been obtained by the exporter cannot be recovered so long as the sale proceeds are realised within the initial period of time allowed or the extended time. In the present case, no recovery has been made against the petitioner of the drawback which has been realised and hence the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 16A would not come into operation. The contention of the petitioner that all the export proceeds had in fact been realised needs to be factually verified. This exercise cannot be carried out by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
