9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant annexures containing the requisite certificate despite issuance of summons. They neither appeared before Customs nor submitted the requisite documents. Rather they asked the Customs to procure said documents from their CHA. The printout of the Shipping Bills were retrieved from the EDI data. The investigation carried out could not verify the veracity of said certificates. Therefore the drawback claim were rightly denied. After investigation it has been conclusively proved that the applicant did not furnish details of supplier/manufacturer/job-worker and as such violated provisions of Circular No. 54/2001-Cus., dated 19-10-2001. Since, the violation is conclusively established, Government do not find any reason to consider appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out. On investigation it was detected that the applicants are claiming duty drawback (Drawback of Central Excise Portion) by providing wrong and incorrect information, which is required to be furnished as per Drawback Circular Nos. 54/2001 dated 19-10-2001 and 64/2001, dated 19-11-2001 along with the relevant shipping bills at time of export. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued to the applicant for recovery of fraudulently availed drawback of duty. Subsequently, vide impugned Orders-in-Original, the original authority confirmed recovery of such fraudulently availed drawback of Central Excise portion with interest and also imposed penalty upon applicants. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Orders-in-Original, applicant filed appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppression of facts by the applicant and therefore the extended period is not invocable and the proceedings are barred by time and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 4.2 The Authorities below have erred in law in observing that the Circular No. 16/2009-Cus., dated 25-5-2009 does not have retrospective effect which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has laid down that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively. 4.3 The Authorities below have gravely erred in concluding that there is no time limit for demand of drawback. The Drawback Rules are a piece of subordinate legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no clear, cogent and material evidence of any wilful misstatement by the appellant. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in these cases on 20-4-2012, 31-5-2012 and 29-6-2012. Personal hearing held on 29-6-2012 was attended by Shri Navneet Panwar, Advocate on behalf of the applicants who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government notes that on the basis of investigation carried out by the department, it has been found that the applicants availed drawback of Central Excise portion by providing wrong and incorrect information in Annexure-I/II, which is required to be furnished as per Drawback Circular No. 54/2001, dated 19-10-2001 and 64/2001 dated 19-11-2001. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation carried out could not verify the veracity of said certificates. Therefore the drawback claim were rightly denied. 8. Government notes that vide C.B.E. C. Circular No. 16/2009-Cus., dated 25-5-2009, (F.No. 609/137/2007/DBK), scheme for grant of All Industry Rate of duty drawback to merchant exporters was liberalised and merchant exporters purchasing goods from market for export were allowed full rate of drawback including Excise Portion. The relevant Para 7 of the said circular is extracted below :- 7. In view of the above, the Board has decided to accept the recommendation of the Drawback Committee in this regard. Thus merchant exporters who purchase goods from the local market for export shall henceforth be entitled to ful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made applicable to this case. Government notes that Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of M/s. Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) and in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries Ltd. - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) that C.B.E. C. Circulars/instructions are binding on departmental authorities. Hon ble Supreme Court has also held in the case I.T.C. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) that statute shall be interpreted strictly within terms and language of statute and no liberal interpretation is permissible. Therefore the provisions of Circular No. 16/2009-Cus., dated 25-5-2009 being prospective are rightly followed in this case. 10. As regards the applicant s contention rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
