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 (9) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had filed 3 shipping bills for the export of plain paper cut in size, claiming drawback under Sl. No. 48026210 @ 5.5%. On examination, the Shed Officers felt that the goods were not prime quality paper as declared in the export documents. Hence, the Shed Officers drew samples and forwarded to the export assessment section for testing the quality and correctness of the value cleared. The samples were forwarded to the Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute during March 2012 to test the quality and correctness of the value as the drawback entitlement can be considered on the quality and value of the paper. The Central Pulp & Paper Research institute, Saharanpur, U.P vide their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ligible drawback of 1% and not 5.5% as claimed by the respondents. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Original, the respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (A), who decided the same in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant department has filed this Revision Application under Section 129DD of the Act, 1962 on following grounds :- 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals), in impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 55/2013, has concluded that "it is seen from the records that prime quality has not been defined elsewhere i.e. in the Tariff, drawback Rules, Schedule or Statute etc." and further the quality of finished goods cannot be determined on the basis of raw materials. As per Oxford di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rved that department itself sent the paper sample to Central Pulp & Paper Research Institute, Saharanpur, but CPPRI, Saharanpur, requested to provide certain particulars from the exporter to complete the testing procedure. Neither the exporter gave the particulars required by the CPPRI, Saharanpur, nor obtained the test report indicating the quality of paper from CPPRI, Saharanpur and produced before the original adjudicating authority and appellate authority. This shows the non-cooperative attitude of the exporter to decide the issue in the right spirit and also establishes that the exporter is not in possession of the right quality paper to be subjected to genuine testing, to ascertain the correct classification and for a fair decision, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erated contents of impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. Personal Hearing held on 30-9-2014 was attended by Shri K. Narayanan, consultant and Shri Ashok Garg, proprietor of the company on behalf of respondent. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of applicant department. The applicant department vide letter dated 25-9-2014 stated that case may be decided on merit on the basis of available records. 7. Government has gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. Government finds that in the instant case, the applicant filed 3 Shipping Bills for export of plain Paper cut in size and claimed drawback under S. No. 48026210 @ 5.5%. The Original authority held that the goods are not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wise is decided only after testing the critical parameters of such finished goods and not on the basis of raw material only. Further, such waste paper goes through various stages involving different processes in manufacturing of finished goods. Hence, Government finds no substance in department's contention that the impugned finished products remain no more prime as the respondents used waste paper as raw material. 9.2 Government finds that there are no categorical evidences brought on record by department the prime that the impugned goods are not prime. The report of CPPRI is inconclusive. The in house report submitted by the respondent was before original authority. If the same was not acceptable to the tower authority, they could h .....

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