Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether drawback could be denied or recovered merely because a fraction of duty-free imported raw material used in dyeing lost its identity in the manufacturing process, where the exported goods were manufactured using both duty-free imported inputs and duty-paid domestic inputs.
Analysis: The exported goods were manufactured from a mixed input stream consisting of duty-free imported raw materials and excise duty-paid domestic raw materials. The duty-free material used in dyeing lost its identity during processing, but that circumstance did not justify dissecting the drawback scheme to deny the industry rate of drawback. The prescribed drawback rate already reflects the composition of exempted and dutiable inputs used in the industry, and the mere use of some duty-free material in manufacture does not defeat entitlement where export obligation has been fulfilled.
Conclusion: The drawback claim could not be denied on the stated ground, and the appellant was entitled to succeed.
Final Conclusion: The demand to repay the drawback was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with the drawback benefit maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an industry rate of drawback is prescribed and exported goods are manufactured using both duty-free and duty-paid inputs, drawback cannot be denied merely because a portion of duty-free input loses identity during manufacture, absent a case that the export was made only from duty-free goods.