9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules. These are two independent provisions and cannot be linked to claim benefit which is not due. The scope of Notes and Condition No. 7 (supra) is thus limited to granting of Customs portion of drawback even when Cenvat facility is availed. It nowhere stipulates that Customs portion and Central Excise portion can be availed separately and that too by two different entities. Revision application rejected. - F. No. 375/08-10/DBK /2017-RA C. Ex. - Order Nos. 19-21/2019-Cus - Dated:- 10-10-2019 - Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary ORDER Three Revision Applications Nos. 375/08-10/DBK/2017-R.A. C. Ex., dated 5-4-2017 have been filed by M/s. Amber Enterprises Private Limited, (hereinafter referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that para 3 of the Board s Circular No. 13/2014-Cus., dated 18-11-2014 deary states that where the drawback claim is filed with reference to All Industry rate, an application for fixation of brand rate under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 shall not be admissible. 3. Personal hearing was fixed on 25-9-2019. Mr. R.K. Hasija, Advocate and Ms. Kiran Garg, Head (Accounts), M/s. Amber Enterprises Private Limited appeared on behalf of the applicant. They reiterated the grounds of appeal and stated that the department had denied the brand rate fixation on the pretext that the merchant exporter has availed All Industry Rate (AIR) of 1.9%. Since the Drawback Schedule mentions the rate of 1.9%, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s than four-fifth of the duties or taxes actually paid on inputs meriting fixation of brand rate. Further, an exporter is debarred from filing any application for fixation of brand rate where AIR drawback has already been claimed even when it is found later that the AIR of drawback was less than four-fifth of the duties/taxes paid on the inputs. Since in the instant case the merchant exporter has already claimed AIR of drawback at the time of export of goods which has already been sanctioned the applicant is not eligible to file an application for fixation of brand rate with the erstwhile Central Excise Commissionerate, Meerut, subsequently under the provisions of Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n quoted by the applicant only relates to the All Industries rates of drawback and has nothing to do with the fixation of brand rate under Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules. These are two independent provisions and cannot be linked to claim benefit which is not due. The scope of Notes and Condition No. 7 (supra) is thus limited to granting of Customs portion of drawback even when Cenvat facility is availed. It nowhere stipulates that Customs portion and Central Excise portion can be availed separately and that too by two different entities. The applicant referred to the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Alfa Laval (India) Limited v. UOI [2014 (309) E.L.T. 17 (Bom.)], wherein the Court has held that there is no bar in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
