TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, a DTA unit getting garments processed through a 100% EOU, was entitled to full all industry rate drawback notwithstanding the revisional order denying such benefit and restricting it to partial drawback under departmental circulars.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the combined operation of Rule 3 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, the general notes to the drawback notifications, and the departmental circulars governing exports involving 100% EOUs. The revisional authority had treated the processing done in the 100% EOU as sufficient to exclude all industry rate drawback, relying on the view that goods manufactured or processed in a warehouse or by a 100% EOU were outside the entitlement. The Court, however, followed the binding Division Bench ruling which harmonised Notification No. 67/98-Cus. (N.T.) with Circular No. 31/2000-Cus. and held that DTA units sending goods for job work to 100% EOUs and exporting the finished goods directly were eligible for drawback on the duties suffered on their inputs. The departmental circulars could not be read to defeat the entitlement recognised on a harmonious reading of the rules and notifications.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to drawback benefits, and the revisional order denying the claim could not be sustained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
