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: (i) Whether brand rate fixation under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 is admissible after drawback at the All Industry Rate has already been claimed and sanctioned. (ii) Whether Note 7 of Notification No. 110/2015-Cus. (N.T.) permits separate availment of the Central Excise component of drawback despite claim of the Customs component at the All Industry Rate.
Issue (i): Whether brand rate fixation under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 is admissible after drawback at the All Industry Rate has already been claimed and sanctioned.
Analysis: Rule 7 contemplates fixation of brand rate in a limited situation where the All Industry Rate is lower than four-fifths of the duties or taxes actually paid on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods. The rule also bars an application for brand rate fixation where drawback at the All Industry Rate has already been claimed under Rule 3 or Rule 4. The factual basis necessary to invoke the exception was not established, and the prior claim and sanction of drawback at the All Industry Rate attracted the bar contained in the rule.
Conclusion: Brand rate fixation was not admissible after the All Industry Rate drawback had already been claimed and sanctioned.
Issue (ii): Whether Note 7 of Notification No. 110/2015-Cus. (N.T.) permits separate availment of the Central Excise component of drawback despite claim of the Customs component at the All Industry Rate.
Analysis: Note 7 explains the difference between the columns in the drawback schedule and clarifies when the rate relates only to the Customs component. It governs the operation of All Industry Rates and does not create a separate entitlement to split the drawback between different entities or to claim the Central Excise component independently by resort to brand rate fixation. The notification and Rule 7 operate in different fields, and the notification could not be used to override the statutory bar on a subsequent brand rate application.
Conclusion: Note 7 did not permit separate claim of the Central Excise component by way of brand rate fixation.
Final Conclusion: The applications failed because the prior All Industry Rate claim excluded a later brand rate claim, and the notification relied upon did not create an independent entitlement to the Central Excise portion of drawback.
Ratio Decidendi: Where drawback at the All Industry Rate has already been claimed and sanctioned, Rule 7 bars a subsequent application for brand rate fixation, and a notification explaining drawback schedule components cannot be used to bypass that statutory restriction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
