Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uty drawback long after the export were made and the benefits which were extended have been denied pursuant to Circular No.55/99-Cus dated 25.08.1999 - HELD THAT:- The order does not call for any interference. The issue has been examined by the Revisional Authority in the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute [ 2001 (7) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ], wherein, it has been held that clarificatory notifications are retrospective in nature. The petitioner was not entitled to drawback claim as the product exported by the petitioner was Woolen Readymade Garments. It has been clarified by CBEC Circular No.55/99 dated 25.08.1999 that S.S.NO.62 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Subject: Duty Drawback on Readymade Woollen Garments Some doubts have been raised by the field formations and certain sections of the Trade as regards the applicability of All Industry Rate of Drawback under S.S.No.62.01 of the Drawback Table to the Woollen Garments not specified in S.S.No.62.09 ibid. The issue has been examined and it is clarified that sub-serial No.62.01 of the Drawback Table is not applicable to Woollen Readymade Garments. It is also clarified that S.S.No.62.09 is applicable to only Woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets, therefore, Woollen Garments other than these categories are not covered by any of the S.S.Nos. of Drawback Table and hence the exporters can only claim Brand rate for the same. This may be brought to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... toms Act, 1962, before the 1st Respondent who has passed the Impugned Order whereby the Order of the Appellate Commissioner has been reversed. 8. Operative portion of the Impugned Order of the 1st Respondent reads as under:- 9. On perusal of records, it is observed that respondent had exported woven woolen ladies vests vide 5 shipping bills and claimed drawback of duty under S.S.No.62.01. The total drawback claims of Rs. 5,14,694/ were sanctioned and paid to exporter in July/August, 1999. Subsequently, on the basis of audit objection it was noticed that said goods are neither covered under drawback schedule S. S. No. 62.01 nor any other heading and therefore they were not eligible for All Industry Drawback Rate. After due process of law, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble to only woollen Suits/Trousers/Blazers/Jackets, therefore woollen garments other than these categories are not covered by any of the S.S. Nos of Drawback Table and hence the exporters can only claim Brand Rate for the same 12. Government notes and opines that the Appellate Authority has failed to distinguish that the Boards Circular dated 25.08.1999 is in the nature of a clarification and when an issue is clarified the cause of such clarification would have been based on some confusion on an issue which was in existence before the said clarification was issued and thus has been issued to bring clarity by removing confusion, if any, and would therefore, have a retrospective effect in its implementation. 13. Government notes that the ques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax on the strength of said Circular retrospectively. It is submitted that the Circular was not available at the time of export made by the Petitioner and therefore, export incentives recognized by the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have been reversed. 11. The respondents/Department has not filed any counter affidavit. 12. The writ petition is of the year 2022. I have perused the order passed by the second respondent/Revisional Authority. 13. In my view, the order does not call for any interference. The issue has been examined by the Revisional Authority in the light of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs. Central Manufacturing Technology Institute reported in 2002 (142) ELT 336(Kar), wherein, it ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates