2001 (12) TMI 478 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Refund Claim on Drawback Payment Jurisdiction

TEXCOMASH EXPORTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI

The Appellate Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over a refund claim of Drawback amount, citing the proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act. ... Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Refund of drawback Issues:Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in relation to refund claim of Drawback amount.Analysis:1. The appeal concerns a dispute over a refund claim of Rs. 88,81,082/- Drawback amount by M/s. Texcomash Exports. The Revenue argues that as per proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, no appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal regarding payment of Drawback. They cite precedents like Bajaj Organics Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad and Naval Kishore Bangard v. Commissioner of Customs to support their stance that Tribunal jurisdiction does not extend to Drawback-related issues beyond mere payment.2. On the contrary, the Appellant contends that the appeal is maintainable as it pertains to the refund of an amount wrongly deposited, not the payment of Drawback. They emphasize that the issue concerns the refund of the deposited amount due to coercion by DRI officials, and not the original payment of Drawback. They cite legal precedents like U.O.I. v. Ram Narayan and State of Maharashtra v. Nanded Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh to argue for a broader interpretation of the jurisdictional limitations.3. The Tribunal examines the proviso to Section 129A of the Customs Act, which bars appeals related to payment of Drawback. It notes that the Appellants had received and subsequently deposited the Drawback amount under investigation by DRI. The Tribunal observes that the refund application clearly sought the refund of the deposited Drawback amount, falling within the ambit of payment of Drawback. Citing cases like Naval Kishore Bangard and Premium Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal asserts that the phrase 'payment of drawback' encompasses issues related to recovery of Drawback, thus precluding Tribunal jurisdiction.4. Further, the Tribunal dismisses the Appellant's reliance on cases like Madura Coats Ltd. v. CCE and Ram Narayan, stating that the present matter involves the recovery of Drawback, aligning with the legislative intent to exclude such issues from Tribunal jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal upholds the Revenue's argument, concluding that the appeal is not maintainable due to the nature of the issue being directly related to the payment and recovery of Drawback. Consequently, the Tribunal allows the Revenue's Misc. Application and dismisses the appeal filed by the Appellants.