Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal is filed before the Tribunal. On a plain reading of Section 75A of the said Act, it is clear that the payment of interest is arising from the drawback payable to a claimant under Section 74 or Section 75, which was not paid within the stipulated period. - Under Secretary (Drawback) had not fixed the brand rate of draw back. By Order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner fixed the value of brand rate of drawback and the payment of drawback was made to the appellants. Hence, the claim of interest is arising out of payment of drawback under Section 75 of the Act. In our considered view, in the pres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... draw-back as provided in Chapter X of Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules made thereunder. He submits that the payment of interest under Section 75A of the Act, 1962, is arising out of the payment of draw-back under Section 74 or Section 75, not paid within the stipulated period. Rule 14 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax draw-back Rules, 1995, provides payment of draw-back and interest. So, the payment of interest is connected with the draw-back claim and the appeal cannot be maintained before the Tribunal. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercury Exports Manufacturing (P) Ltd. Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata - 2009 (246) ELT 646 (Tri.- Kol.). 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants submi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ilar preliminary objection following the decision of Marvel Apparels (supra). 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants had exported 100% Cotton Grey Power Loom fabrics vide 343 shipping bills during the period 1999 - 2001 under DEPB cum DBK scheme and availed brand rate of drawback in terms of Board's Circular No. 68/97-Cus. dated 02.12.97. But, the brand rate of drawback was not fixed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate, at the relevant period. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of another claimant M/s. Areva Industries Pvt. Ltd., who filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgment da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... back, there shall be paid to that claimant in addition to the amount of drawback, interest at the rate fixed under Section 27A from the date after the expiry of the said period of one month till the date of payment of such drawback . 6. we find that the proviso to Section 129A (1) of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall no jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), under Section 128 of the Customs Act, if such order relates to payment of draw-back as provided under Chapter X and the Rules made thereunder. It is noted that the appeal against the order of the Commissioner in respect of payment of drawback is appealable befor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mercury Exports Manufacturing (P) Ltd. (supra). 7. The Ld. Advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Marvel Apparels (supra) . In that case, the order of the drawback claim was passed by the Commissioner. The payment of interest was on the basis of the order of the Commissioner. In the present case, the drawback payment was sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner and therefore based on the brand rate of drawback and therefore, the same would not be maintainable before the Tribunal. 8. In view of the above discussions, we find force in the submissions of the Ld. AR. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. The appellant is at liberty to approach to the com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates