9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)].- 1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 7/2007 Commr. dated 17-5-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. 2. The appellants are manufacturers and exporters of Readymade Garments. They had exported 30 consignments through Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore, by filing DEEC shipping bills during February 2006, March 2006 and April 2006 under Advance Licence. Later, they realized that they ought to have filed DEEC-cum-Drawback shipping bill because they had used a large number of inputs, which had discharged the Central Excise duty liability and they failed to claim drawback. In other words, they did not file DEEC-cum-Drawback shipping bills. Therefore, they ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason for allowing conversion of the shipping bill under the said circular. The Commissioner has gone purely by the Circular and rejected the request. The appellants have raised various contentions and they have referred to Para 2.56 of the EXIM Policy and also the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules. The Commissioner has referred to all these provisions in his findings and he has given a finding that there is no provision to allow the conversion. The appellants have also relied on a large number of case laws. The Commissioner has stated that those case laws are not relevant and he has tried to distinguish the case laws. 5. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that the conversion cannot be just like permitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a failure on the part of the exporter to export the goods under one scheme will automatically deprive him of the benefit of the drawback. We cannot say that legally, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the drawback. Para 2.56 of the EXIM Policy is very relevant and we hold that under Para 2.56, there is a provision for conversion from one scheme to another. We agree with the learned advocate who has quoted the Hon'ble Apex Court's observation that procedures are handmaiden and not mistresses of justice. In the present case, the prayer of the appellant with regard to drawback is justified. When major portion of the raw materials used has suffered duty, there is no reason why the drawback should not be granted. The drawback w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
