9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra of the impugned Order-in-Appeal is factually not correct, as power to condone and allow was available under proviso to Rule 5(1) and 8(1) of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. That in 1993 the very filing of a drawback shipping bill was taken as a claim. That it is not a time barred case. 2. Briefly stated, the Asstt. Commissioner rejected the drawback c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rves the sequence of events as follows :- 29-12-1992 - Import of 8 moulds vide B/E No. 40986, dated 30-11-1992 and payment of duty amount of Rs. 2,09,920/- after execution of PD bond. 10-11-1993 - Shipping Bill under claim for drawback for re-export filed. 18-11-1993 - Let export ordered. 15-9-1995 - Drawback claim in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in 1993 the very filing of a drawback shipping bill was taken as a claim. If that is so, then there was no need to file a separate claim on 22-12-1993 as claimed. However, Government observes that prior to the issue of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") vide Notification No. 36/95-Cus. (N.T.), dated 26-5-1995, the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re allowed to be cleared under Provisional Duty Assessment Bond (PD Bond), as seen from the embossing on the relevant bill of entry for home consumption; that the department vide letter dated 25-8-1995 (page 31 and 32 of the Paperbook filed in revision) finalised the provisional assessment; that the drawback claim was filed within a month of such finalisation on 15-9-1995. In that case, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
