Exporter wins appeal for conversion from duty drawback to DEPB scheme despite Revenue objections.

The Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, an exporter, allowing the conversion of shipping bills from duty drawback to the DEPB scheme. Despite the Revenue officer's objections citing circulars, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request, considering their prior intimation about intending to claim DEPB benefits and the EDI system constraints. The Tribunal emphasized the Revenue's lack of guidance on manual amendments and granted the conversion with consequential relief, overturning the Commissioner's decision.

---

---

Issues: Conversion of shipping bills from duty drawback to DEPB scheme.

In this case, the appellant, an exporter, filed 91 Shipping Bills for export of combed hosiery yarn on cone under the Duty Drawback scheme. Before filing these shipping bills, the appellant had informed the Revenue officer about the increased DEPB rate from 3.67% to 7.67% and their intention to file under duty drawback scheme due to the EDI system not accepting the higher rate. The appellant planned to request conversion to DEPB shipping bills later. The appellant applied for conversion after completing exports but was denied by the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had intimated the Revenue about their intention to claim DEPB benefits before exports and found no merit in the Revenue's argument against conversion. The Tribunal held that the appellant's request for conversion was justified, setting aside the Commissioner's decision and granting the conversion with consequential relief to the appellant.

The Commissioner had cited Circular No. 4/2004-Cus. and Public Notice No. 102/RE-2008 (2004-09) to argue against the conversion. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's stance, emphasizing that conversion from one export promotion scheme to another should not be ordinarily allowed. The key issue was whether the appellant's request for conversion was justified, given their prior intimation to the Revenue about their intention to avail DEPB benefits and the EDI system's limitations. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's failure to guide the appellant on manual amendments, despite being informed about the situation, weakened their argument against conversion. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deeming the conversion request fair and proper, and granted the conversion to DEPB scheme shipping bills along with consequential relief.

---