Drawback denied for exports using duty-free inputs, with later customs clarification held inapplicable to earlier shipments.

Drawback was unavailable where export goods were manufactured using inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, because the applicable drawback notifications for the relevant period excluded such exports. Notification No. 84/2010-Cus. (N.T.) and Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. were effective only from 20.09.2010 and could not be applied to exports made earlier absent express retrospectivity. Concealment of duty-free procurement of inputs supported penal action, and the penalty was sustained with modification of quantum. The recovery order was restored and the relief granted in appeal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether drawback was admissible where the export goods were manufactured using inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 under the relevant drawback notifications in force for the disputed period; (ii) whether Notification No. 84/2010-Cus. (N.T.) and Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. could be applied retrospectively to exports made before 20.09.2010; and (iii) whether penalty was leviable for concealment of the fact of duty-free procurement of inputs.

Issue (i): whether drawback was admissible where the export goods were manufactured using inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 under the relevant drawback notifications in force for the disputed period

Analysis: The disputed claims related to the period 2006-07 to 31.08.2010 and were governed by the drawback notifications then in force. Those notifications excluded drawback where the goods were manufactured or exported in terms of Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since the export goods were manufactured using Hexane procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2), the drawback condition was not satisfied.

Conclusion: Drawback was not admissible and the original recovery was justified.

Issue (ii): whether Notification No. 84/2010-Cus. (N.T.) and Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. could be applied retrospectively to exports made before 20.09.2010

Analysis: The later notification and the corresponding circular were stated to be effective from 20.09.2010. The earlier regime applicable to the disputed exports did not confer the same benefit. Therefore, the later clarification could not govern exports completed before its effective date.

Conclusion: The notification and circular could not be applied retrospectively.

Issue (iii): whether penalty was leviable for concealment of the fact of duty-free procurement of inputs

Analysis: The material showed that the duty-free procurement of inputs under Rule 19(2) was not disclosed. On that basis, penal consequences were considered appropriate, and the original authority's view on penalty was substantially sustained with modification of quantum.

Conclusion: Penalty was leviable, with modified penalties imposed.

Final Conclusion: The revision application failed in substance, the departmental challenge was accepted, the refund or drawback relief granted in appeal was set aside, and the recovery order was restored with modification of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicable drawback notification excludes exports manufactured with inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2), later beneficial circulars or notifications cannot be applied to earlier exports unless expressly made retrospective.

---