Deemed export drawback under the notified schedule cannot be denied for CENVAT credit availed; brand rate is not the only route.

Deemed export drawback under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Handbook of Procedures must be determined by the governing policy and the notified drawback schedule, not by a circular that narrows the benefit. Where the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback Schedule expressly contains Column 'B' for goods on which CENVAT credit has been availed, that entitlement cannot be denied merely because credit was taken, nor can brand rate fixation be treated as the only available route. The applicable drawback rate under the schedule prevailed for the relevant goods, and an administrative clarification could not override that scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed export drawback at the rate specified in Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback Schedule despite availing CENVAT credit, or whether the only permissible route was fixation of brand rate.

Analysis: The claim arose from deemed exports under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 and the Handbook of Procedures, where para 8.5 of the Policy and para 8.3.3 of the Handbook governed drawback for supplies to EOUs. The Schedule to the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback contained separate Columns 'A' and 'B', reflecting different treatment depending on whether CENVAT credit had been availed. The impugned order treated availment of CENVAT credit as excluding recourse to Column 'B' and confined the petitioner to brand rate fixation. The Court found that this approach ignored the structure of the drawback schedule and the scheme of deemed export benefits. Where the notified rate in Column 'B' was specifically available, the benefit could not be denied merely because CENVAT credit had been availed, especially when the rate under both columns was the same for the relevant goods. The policy circular could not be used to impose a restriction inconsistent with the governing policy and drawback scheme.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to claim drawback under Column 'B' of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback Schedule, and the insistence on brand rate fixation alone was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A clarification or circular cannot curtail a drawback entitlement expressly available under the policy and the notified schedule, and where the schedule itself provides a specific rate for goods on which CENVAT credit has been availed, that rate cannot be denied on the ground that brand rate fixation is the only route.

---