9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the lower authorities have objected to it in absence of any authorized legal amendment to the filed EDI system AIR-DBK Shipping Bills. Government also notes that neither the above amendment nor any specific relaxation thereof under Rule 17 of the above DBK Rules, 1995 is on record before this authority. Rather for such subject matters for fixation of Brand Rate under Rule 7(1) of the Drawback Rules, 1995 after exporter avails All Industry Rate Drawback under Rule 3 by virtue of his declaration on the shipping bill to avail AIR of drawback. When provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom is not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /36/11, dated 18-3-2011 3. 371/34/DBK/11-RA-Cus. P.I/RKS/38/11, dated 21-3-2011 2. Briefly stated the common facts of the respective case are that applicants have filed application under Rule 7(1) of the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 for fixation of brand rate of drawback, claiming drawback amount of (i) ₹ 4,76,110/-, ₹ 1,98,053/- and ₹ 3,08,852/- respectively. Additional Commissioner (BRU) Central Excise, Pune-I, vide impugned order issued under F.No. PI/BRU/D-IV/SA/65/10, dated 19-10-2010, F.No. PI/BRU/D-IV/SA/87/10 dated 18-11-2010 and F.No. PI/BRU/D-IV/SA/91/10, dated 19-11-2010 has sanctioned drawback claim of ₹ 1,53,744/-, ₹ 84,392/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government that only goods and services should be exported and not the duty and taxes. Keeping the same in view their claims be re-examined otherwise they will be in loss. 4.3 Applicant has been claiming All Industry Rate under scheme B for all his exports and in this particular case there was inadvertent error made while submitting the Shipping Bills for exports. Further, applicant through his CHA has already approached concerned Customs port for amendment in the said Shipping Bills. 4.4 Brand rate application has been filed for fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs duty under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not for the Central Excise duty and/or of Service Tax and hence rejection of application is not correct. 4.5 Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drawback Rules. Therefore, restriction of customs duty drawback on account of availment of Cenvat Credit of additional duty of Customs (CVD) is not tenable in law. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 20-4-2012, 31-5-2012 and 29-6-2012. Shri V.B. Kulkarni, DGM Indirect Tax and Shri A.S. Foujdar Consultant appeared on 29-6-2012 on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 7. Government first considers and condones a 21 days delay in one case as per applicant s request and keeping in view Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted materials used in export goods should still be admissible on merits as per their submitted grounds. 9. For these case matters it is noted that the applicant exporters had indeed filed their drawback claims under relevant All Industry Rate Drawback schedule entry of category A which on verification found was inadmissible because of Cenvat Credit facilities as discussed above. Now, the applicant by terming the same as an inadvertent error and wants to change the same into a claim of fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs Duty. It is now noted that the lower authorities have objected to it in absence of any authorized legal amendment to the filed EDI system AIR-DBK Shipping Bills. Government also notes that neither the above amend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin terms and language of statute and without intendments or any liberal interpretation. Further, Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.)] and Hon ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Avis Electronics [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tri.-LB)] has observed that when provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom is not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. 11. In view of above, Government finds the impugned orders as proper wherein sufficient cause of action stands completed on the basis of all the submitted documents by the applicant, thus the same nowhere contravenes the principles of natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
