Court grants petitioner's claim for deemed export drawback, quashes previous order, allows relief sought.

The court quashed the order dated 15.02.2017 and allowed the petitioner's claim for deemed export drawback at the rate specified in Column "B" of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback Schedule. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to claim this drawback even if CENVAT Credit was availed, as per the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and relevant notifications. The court granted the relief sought by the petitioner and made no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Policy Circular No. 9(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 30.10.2013.
2. Validity of the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by Respondent No. 3.
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to deemed export drawback at the rate mentioned in Column “B” of the Schedule of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback.
4. Interpretation of Para 8.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-2014 and Para 8.3.3 of the Hand Book of Procedures (HBP) Volume-I.
5. Application of the Drawback Rules and the relevant notifications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Policy Circular No. 9(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 30.10.2013:
The petitioner challenged the Policy Circular No. 9(RE-2013)/2009-14, which clarified that deemed export drawback is not admissible if the facility of CENVAT Credit/rebate is availed. The petitioner argued that this circular was contrary to the provisions enabling duty drawback and beyond the powers of the authorities. The court found that the circular was issued to clarify the existing policy and did not introduce any new prohibition or bar that was not already present in the FTP 2009-2014.

2. Validity of the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by Respondent No. 3:
The petitioner contended that the order dated 15.02.2017, which rejected their claim for deemed export drawback, was contrary to law. The court noted that the order was based on the interpretation of Para 8.5 of the FTP and the policy circular. The court found that the order was not in tune with the policy and the HBP, and that the rejection of the claim was unwarranted.

3. Entitlement of the petitioner to deemed export drawback at the rate mentioned in Column “B” of the Schedule of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback:
The petitioner claimed that they were entitled to drawback at the rate specified in Column “B” of the Schedule, even if CENVAT Credit was availed. The court observed that the FTP and HBP provided for two separate rates of drawback, one for when CENVAT Credit is availed (Column “B”) and one for when it is not (Column “A”). The court held that the petitioner was entitled to claim drawback under Column “B” on production of suitable disclaimers and self-declarations.

4. Interpretation of Para 8.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-2014 and Para 8.3.3 of the Hand Book of Procedures (HBP) Volume-I:
The court examined the provisions of Para 8.5 of the FTP and Para 8.3.3 of the HBP. It found that these provisions allowed for the claiming of deemed export drawback at the rates specified in the Schedule of All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback or through the fixation of brand rates. The court concluded that the petitioner had the option to claim drawback at the rate specified in Column “B” of the Schedule.

5. Application of the Drawback Rules and the relevant notifications:
The court referred to the Drawback Rules and the relevant notifications, including Notification No. 68/2011-Customs (NT) dated 22nd September, 2011, which specified the rates of drawback. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the rates specified in Column “B” of the Schedule, as the same rate was applicable regardless of whether CENVAT Credit was availed or not.

Conclusion:
The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 and allowed the petitioner’s claim for deemed export drawback at the rate mentioned in Column “B” of the Schedule of the All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback. The court made the rule absolute in terms of the reliefs sought by the petitioner and held that there would be no order as to costs.

---