9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged the order dated 13 June 2012 passed by Respondent No.2 - The Joint Secretary, Revisionary Authority, Ministry of Finance. By the impugned order the Revisionary Authority has confirmed Order in Original passed in appeal. Consequence of the impugned order is that Petitioners claim for duty drawback of Rs.2,52,429/- is refused. 2. The Petitioner is a manufacturer of circuit breakers and switch gears of high voltage. The Petitioner exported the goods under ten shipping bills dated 21 January 2008, 5 February 2008, 12 February 2008, 4 March 2008, 11 March 2008, 11 June, 2008, 5 June, 2008, 10 November, 2008, 27 November 2008 and 11 December 2008. The Petitioners claimed draw back at the rate of 4% on FOB value under S.S.No. 85.37 of the Dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs (Appeals). The Petitioner reiterated the contentions that the goods exported was Petitioner's under the Shipping bill would fall under S.S.No. 85.37. As regards the drawback under S.S. No. 85.35 at the rate of 3.2% and 2.7% some amount has been paid to the Petitioner. 5. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) considered both entries and gave opportunity to the Petitioner and dismissed appeal confirming that the goods in question were under S.S.No. 85.37. The Petitioner thereafter filed a revision before Respondent no.2-Revisional Authority. The Respondent No. 2-RevisionaL Authority gave hearing to the Petitioner and considered the matter in light of the relevant entries under S.S.No. 85.35 and S.S.No. 85.37 and observed that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) which was accepted both by the Petitioner and the department, though relied upon and referred to in the proceeding has not been considered at all. 9. We take the second contention first for consideration. The order in appeal arising out of the Order in Original No. Commr. (A)28/VDR/98 is placed on record. This order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara is that the Appeal in the case of the Petitioner the description of the goods in the said order is SF6 circuit breaker or High Voltage Switch Gear which is the same involved in the present case. By Order in Original the said product was classified under entry S.S.No. 85.37 which the Petitioner had questioned. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the classifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering the effect and implication of the order in Appeal dated 31 December 1997. Since the classification, under the impugned orders will have to be quashed and set aside to be considered afresh, we keep the contention of the parties regarding the interpretation of the entries open. As regards the contention of the power of the authorities to undertake these proceedings, this issue is not pressed before us. We also make it clear that our observations are not to be construed as the order dated 31 December 1997 has concluded the matter, but the reference to it is only to stress upon the need to remand the proceedings. Accordingly, impugned order dated 31 December 1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and order dated 13 June 2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
