9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew M/s Midex Global Pvt Ltd is aggrieved by the order-in-original no. 07/2010 dated 25th March 2010 of Commissioner of Customs, Pune which has rejected their application for exercise of discretion under rule 12 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Appellant had filed 25 shipping bills between 8th February 2007 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch free shipping bills had been filed. According to her, their claim, despite eligibility for drawback, was declined without exercise of mind. 3. According to her, there is no dispute on the export of 'molasses' which is evidenced by the endorsement of officers of customs as well as by the master of the vessel transporting the said goods. It is her contention that eligibility for duty drawback no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o him, the failure to indicate the applicable heading in the shipping bill rendered it impossible to determine eligibility for drawback. 5. On a perusal of the records it is seen that the goods were exported by bulk carrier and that 'molasses' are eligible for drawback at appropriate rate in the drawback schedule. It is also abundantly clear that the statutory provisions relating to payment of dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r January 2007 has not been taken into account. It would also appear that the Commissioner has not established the appellant to have indulged in misrepresentation in the shipment. 7. For the above reasons we set aside the decision of Commissioner of Customs declining the post-export inclusion of particulars pertinent for sanction of drawback enumerated in rule 12 of the Customs, Central Excise Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
