9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri D. N. Panda, Member (J) [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T).] - 1. Heard Shri N.C. Roychowdhury, ld. Sr. Advocate, appearing for the Department and Shri S. K. Bagaria, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondents. The original authority had denied DEPB benefit in respect of 13 (thirteen) impugned shipping bills Under the impugned order dated 11-11-02. The lower appellate authority under the impugned order dated 30-1-03 has allowed DEPB benefit. The Department is in appeal against the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. 2. Shri N.C. Roychowdhury, ld. Sr. Advocate, inter alia , contends the following: (i) Under the DEPB Scheme, credit is allowed at a specified rate against specified expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered all the objections raised by the Customs and have over-ruled the same. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the case records including the Policy provision in force at the material time, we find that Fragrant PP Mats have been specified as a separate item in DEPB schedule only from a future date granting DEPB benefit at the lower rate of 12% as against the benefit available at the rate of 20% for PP Mats. It appears that specially considering the quantum of duty suffered in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of Fragrant PP Mats and its higher value in the market, a lower rate of DEPB is per haps adequate to neutralize the duty element on the export product and hence 12% has been fixed for the Fragrant P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y makers had been wiser to carve out a separate DEPB entry for fragrant PP Mats. But having not done so, the respondents have to be allowed the higher benefit under the existing law. Incidentally, this is a clear example of the DEPB Scheme's incompatibility with the WTO provision which prohibits grant of benefits in excess of duty suffered in the manufacture of the export product resulting in grant of WTO incompatible subsidy. But under the Indian laws, the grant of such higher benefit obviously cannot be denied by the Customs authorities solely on that ground. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Hence, the department's appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in the open Court on 31- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
