TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appeal, converts EOU Shipping Bills to Drawback, finding rejection grounds insufficient.</h1> <h3>M/s. Cheslind Textile Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner of Customs' decision to reject the conversion of EOU Shipping Bills into ... 100% EOU - conversion from EOU scheme to DBK Scheme - request for conversion rejected on the grounds that the Drawback and EOU Scheme can both be claimed under code 49 - Held that: - the very same issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sri Anjaneya Cottn Mills Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 1137 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that the exporter is very much entitled for conversion of zero duty EPCG shipping bills to zero duty EPC scheme cum drawback scheme shipping bills - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Conversion of EOU Shipping Bills into Drawback Shipping Bills.Analysis:The case involved the appellant-exporter's request for the conversion of EOU Shipping Bills into Drawback Shipping Bills. The appellant, a 100% EOU, obtained approval for de-bonding to a DTA unit under the EPCG Scheme. The appellant paid duty on capital goods, raw materials, and finished goods as assessed by the ACCE and received the necessary approvals. Despite pending Exit Order, the appellant continued exporting goods using EOU Shipping Bills. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai rejected the conversion request citing that both Drawback and EOU Scheme could be claimed under the same code, and there was no provision for post-export payment of duty for claiming drawback. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the duty on inputs and raw materials used for manufacturing post-30.11.2007 was paid, contrary to the Commissioner's findings. The counsel also highlighted the CBEC Circulars and a Supreme Court judgment supporting the appellant's claim for All Industry Rate of Drawback without the need for conversion. The counsel referenced a previous Tribunal order in a similar case supporting the appellant's entitlement for conversion.On the other hand, the Respondent's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the need for proper declaration on Shipping Bills for claiming drawback. The Tribunal noted that a previous decision in a similar case supported the appellant's position, allowing for the conversion of zero duty EPCG shipping bills to zero duty EPCG scheme cum drawback scheme shipping bills. The Tribunal found the grounds for rejection of the request by the adjudicating authority insufficient and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision was based on the appellant's entitlement for conversion as supported by previous case law and legal provisions, leading to the grant of the All Industry Rate of Drawback for the export of cotton yarn under the EOU Shipping Bills.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments presented, the relevant case law cited, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant's request for the conversion of EOU Shipping Bills into Drawback Shipping Bills.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
