TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the drawback rate fixed under Rule 7 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1971 could be revised or refixed; (ii) whether the price paid by the exporter to the importer for acquiring the imported material was relevant in determining the drawback rate.
Issue (i): Whether the drawback rate fixed under Rule 7 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1971 could be revised or refixed.
Analysis: The scheme of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 links drawback to the duty chargeable on imported materials and to the rules framed by the Central Government. Rule 3 provides the basic determination, Rule 4 permits revision of the rate determined under Rule 3, Rule 7 allows enhancement only where the existing rate is less than three-fourths of the duty paid, and Rule 14 authorises recovery of amount paid erroneously or in excess. The power to revise is not confined to Rule 3 alone, and the existence of Rule 14 shows that an erroneously fixed or excess drawback can be reconsidered and recovered.
Conclusion: The rate fixed under Rule 7 was capable of revision, and the refixation was legally permissible.
Issue (ii): Whether the price paid by the exporter to the importer for acquiring the imported material was relevant in determining the drawback rate.
Analysis: Drawback is a rebate of duty and is not a cash subsidy or export incentive. While the quantity of material used in manufacture is relevant when determining the basic rate under Rule 3 or Rule 4, the ceiling under Rule 7 remains three-fourths of the duty actually paid on the imported material. The amount paid by the exporter for purchase of the imported goods therefore cannot be ignored where it shows that the claimed drawback exceeds the statutory ceiling linked to duty paid.
Conclusion: The exporter's purchase price was relevant, and the drawback rate could not exceed the statutory limit derived from the duty paid.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reduced drawback rate failed because the statutory scheme permitted refixation and required the drawback to remain within the limit connected to the duty actually paid on the imported material.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the drawback rules, the power to revise and recover erroneous or excess drawback extends to rates fixed on an enhanced claim, and drawback cannot exceed the statutory ceiling tied to the duty actually paid on the imported material.
TaxTMI 
