9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was not mandatory so to mention the denier on the shipping bills, while the Department insisted on such a mention. During this period of dispute, the validity period of the DEEC licence expired. The appellant, therefore, applied for conversion of these Shipping Bills, under DEEC export, to Drawback Claim Shipping Bills, as provided for, vide Circular No. 74/97 as amended. This Circular allows conversion of a Free Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills and prescribed guidelines for the same. The applications filed on 27-3-95 and 29-3-95 were not considered favourably. Therefore, the appellant moved the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which directed the respondent to dispose of the applications within eight weeks. 2. Therefore, it appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultant export products should be made of these materials. However, there is no bar in DEEC Scheme to use any input not covered by the advance licence along with those covered by the advance licence. But, drawback in relation to any goods manufactured in India and exported, means - the rebate of duty chargeable or any imported materials or excisable materials used in the manufacture of such goods in India. It is therefore, clear that the requirement of Customs examination of the export goods are different in the case of these DEEC Drawback scheme. The export consignment in this case was under DEEC scheme and therefore, Customs Dock examination was done only from the angle of DEEC scheme requirement and not from Drawback angle. Except for S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue addition in the mentioned matter, has taken place and consequently the exact value (FOB) of the export product and the drawback amount admissible can not be determined at this stage. The exporter although has applied for conversion to drawback but has not mentioned the relevant drawback sub-serial under which they intend to claim the drawback. Submission of certificates regarding non-availment of Modvat credit u/s 57A of the C. Ex. Rules, 1944 on rebate under Rule 12(i)(b), Rule 13(i)(b) ibid from the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the factory/premises of manufacture of the exported goods falls is an essential requirement to avail drawback benefit. The exporter in this case has not submitted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffered. It is, therefore, due to exporter's own fault that they have not been able to avail DEEC benefit. This is not a case where DEEC benefit was rightfully due to the exporter but the exporter shifted their choice from DEEC benefit to drawback benefit. Explanations offered by the exporter on the non-availment of benefit under Rule 57A (Modvat), Rules 12(i)(b) and Rule 13(i)(b) of the Central Excise Rules are confusing and suspicious. Examination of the export consignments has not been done in this case from drawback angle and In absence of any representative samples the actual drawback due on the exported goods can not be determined in this case at this stage. With all these in view I find that the exporters applications dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant be entitled, in the absence of the base fabric descriptions. (d) We have gone through the Drawback Rules and the descriptions as available on the S/Bills, the packing list and other documents. It has been submitted and accepted that, goods, garments were examined by the Customs Authorities and found to be as per the descriptions. Since the dispute for the DEEC export was only as regards the non-mention of denier and samples have been drawn, the objections of Revenue are found to be hypothetical phantoms. The admission of a S/Bill, under claim for Drawback, in entirety necessarily would not mean that the Drawback is eligible. On these exports Drawback would be settled before the same is sanctioned after examination of the claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Central Excise Duty on Garments came only in the year 2001, earlier being fully exempt no Modvat was eligible on Garment as end product; or the Commissioner has rejected the claim for non-mention of the drawback schedule number under the claim. These are procedural and ministrial lacunae, which can be rectified. The substantial benefit of the claim for drawback, cannot be rejected for such clerical curable deficiencies, if any. The rejection by the Commissioner on the grounds, as we find, is indicative of a predetermined mind to a manner that he was examining a drawback claim and not a claim for conversion of a shipping bill under claim for drawback. While certain certification and material evidences may be necessary for eligibility to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
