9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellants was inadmissible, was held to be maintainable. Circular No. 39/2001-Cus. dated 06.07.2001 would allow drawback only based on documents evidencing payment of excise duty on the inputs used in the body portion and not the adhoc rate of 7% fixed by the MOF itself for the product in question under export, considering its peculiarity and other reasons. MOF having clarified about the eligibility of duty drawback vide their letter dated 10.11.2006, the appellants presume that there is no ambiguity on the point that there is no double claim or benefit or the same export product. The appellants seek a chance to make their submission on merits as to how they are entitled for the adhoc rate of 7% drawback fixed by the MOF vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant can avail of a combination of DEPB benefits with brand rate of drawback of CVD paid in cash on imported inputs and /or excise duty paid on non-SION indigenous inputs on the strength of the duty paid documents subject to the condition that Cenvat benefit is not availed on such inputs. 3. Ld. AR, Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the condition that if Cenvat credit availed on such inputs, they cannot avail DEPB benefit with brand rate of drawback on imported inputs and/or excise duty paid on the strength of duty paid documents. Since the Commissioner sent only a letter to the appellant, the same cannot be considered as an appealable order under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. 4. Heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the circumstances of the case, the only option available to the appellant was to approach the Commissioner and the Commissioner was obliged to decide the matter on merit. The order of the Commissioner holding the appeal to be not maintainable cannot, therefore, be sustained. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Commissioner and remit the matter back to him to pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within two months of receipt of a copy of this order. Identical view was taken in the case of Instant Clearing Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (341) ELT 468 (Tri,-Chen.) and Mandvi Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Goa 2012 (276) ELT 103 (Tri.-Mum.). Following the proposition laid in above decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
