9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith dates - The requirement of Section 75 is the use of the imported materials in the export of manufactured goods, which is seriously disputed by the appellant, which aspect has to be properly brought on record. There is also nothing on record as to whether the imported goods under the Advance Licences in question were actually seized, because the Order-in-Appeal refers to a different Advance Licence of a different date altogether. The benefit of Section 75 ibid namely the drawback should be allowed of duties of Customs chargeable under Customs Act cannot be denied as the benefit of duty drawback is allowable on the imported goods used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. Revenue has nowhere disputed the fact of export mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Licences for which the appellant was served with a Notice demanding the entire Duty on the imports covered by the above licences. At that point of time, the appellant chose to settle the dispute by opting for Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (KVSS), which was introduced then whereby, the appellant got its dispute settled after paying 50% of the Duty in terms of the said scheme. A certificate to that effect was also issued by the competent authority, which fact is not disputed by both sides. It was thereafter, vide its letter dated 12.12.1994 that the appellant requested for the grant of Duty drawback on the exports completed, since, by then, the appellant had exported garments under 69 shipping bills between November 1992 and May 1993 and it is wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned Order-In-Original. Against this order, the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 4. Heard Shri B. Satish Sundar, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vikas Jhajharia, Learned Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue, have considered the rival contentions and have also gone through the documents and case laws relied upon during the hearing. 5. At the outset, Learned Advocate for the appellant would seriously contend that the Commissioner has grossly erred and misdirected in restricting the drawback for 50% of FOB value, which is not as per the requirement of Section 75 ibid. He would submit that since the imported goods were seized by the DRI/SIIB, it could not fulfil its export obligation and that duty having pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of the exported goods since the date of the Advance Licences were much later. In the statement of facts in the appeal memorandum, the appellant has given licence numbers along with dates. In the impugned order, I do not see any reference to the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.09.2005 passed by the Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade; maybe because of the reason that the same was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner during the adjudication proceedings. The requirement of Section 75 is the use of the imported materials in the export of manufactured goods, which is seriously disputed by the appellant, as stated above, which aspect has to be properly brought on record. There is also nothing on record as to whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
