9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46,543 kg respectively. The respondent filed Drawback claim against this export under SS No. 8510 of the relevant Drawback Schedule @ Rs. 55/kg. The original authority, based upon the facts on record and submissions made during hearing, classified the export goods as "Ferrous Alloy consisting of more than one Non-Ferrous Metal not otherwise specified" and allowed drawback under SS No. 73.29 ibid wherein the DBK rate was Rs. 0.32/kg. Being aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commr. of Cus. (Appeals) who in his order set aside the original order. 3. The grounds for Revision, in this application are as follows : (a) After exportation of the impugned goods, the company M/s. G.R. Magnets Ltd. from whom the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the respondent showed that the impugned goods were composed of Carbon, Manganese, Chromium and Molybdenum. Therefore, the export goods were not classifiable under SS No. 85.10 and corresponding DBK was not admissible to the importer. 4. Based on this application, the respondents were given a notice to show cause as to why the impugned Order-in-Appeal should not be annulled or modified. The respondents filed a reply to this Show Cause Notice. 5. Sh. Vipin Kumar Jain and Nitin Kumar Jain, both Chartered Accountants appeared on behalf of the respondent for hearing and made the following submissions: (a) That magnetic material could be constituted by various materials and not alone by Cobalt and Nickel. In this regard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents pertaining to M/s. Akshay Exports, who got the 'Cast Alloy Permanent Magnets in unmagnetised condition' from M/s. G.R. Magnets, for export. The box containing these goods were opened examined export was allowed. This would show that G.R. Magnets had the facility to manufacture such goods. 6. Govt. has gone through the rival contentions. Govt. observes that the impugned exports were effected between May '98 and June '98. The RT-12 statements regarding manufacture of these goods by M/s G.R. Magnets for this period pertain to March '98 to June '98; these show entry of the same goods viz. Cast Alloy Permanent Magnet. The applicants have also submitted document of one M/s. Akshay Exports to show that the manufactures M/s. G.R. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore this argument is rejected. 7. The applicant Commissioner has informed that the information obtained during investigations was not available with the Customs House earlier for which these could not be brought in the original proceedings culminating in the original order dated 10-12-98. But the same was available with them when the party's appeal was before the ld. Commr. of Customs (Appeals). Against this, Govt. would observe that the original order was passed on 10-12-98 and the Order-in-Original was issued on 26-10-1999. As per Section 129D (2) the applicant Commissioner could have filed an appeal against the original order within one year of the date of the original order, but he did not do so. It is not clear as to why he k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
