9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The appeal is against the OIA No.43/2006 dt. 25.04.2006. The respondent is a manufacturer and exporter of Aluminium utensils. They procured indigenous Aluminium sheets, but did not avail cenvat credit on the same, used it in the manufacture and export of utensils. As there was no All Industry Rate for Aluminium utensils, the respondent was claiming duty drawback b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present appeal. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri B. Balamurugan, A.R. None appeared for the respondent. 3. The brand rate fixation letters issued by the customs authorities were subsequently withdrawn on the basis of CBEC circular dt. 06.07.2001 in which the following conditions were stipulated to allow the facility of brand rates of drawback for exports made under DEPB scheme again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the above aspect has been discussed elaborately by the Commissioner (Appeals) before allowing the appeal of the respondent. In the impugned order, the issue has been discussed as below :- "4. .....The Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB Scheme) was introduced in the Export and Import Policy (EXIM Policy) for the period 1997-2002. The main objective of the DEPB Scheme was to neutralize the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 25.6.1999 decided that exports made under the DEPB scheme of those products which cannot avail Modvat credit on additional duty of customs (CVD) paid in cash on imported inputs and excise duty paid on indigenous inputs where excise duty is payable on the export good, would be entitled for payment of brand rate of drawback (Emphasis added). 5. From the above, it is clear that the basic condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
