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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the orders revising the duty drawback rate could be sustained when the show-cause notices and the final orders did not address the factors required under Rule 3 of the Customs and Central Excise (Duties Drawback) Rules, 1971, and whether the impugned retrospective revision of drawback could stand.
Analysis: The revision of drawback had to be made with reference to the factors prescribed in Rule 3 of the Rules, including the amount of duties paid on materials wasted in the process of manufacture. The final order reducing the drawback rate proceeded only on the footing that the supplying agency had not recovered the full landed cost of the imported material. That reasoning did not engage with the statutory factors governing drawback fixation and did not deal with the previously verified wastage element. The order was therefore not a speaking order on germane considerations. The retrospective revision order suffered from the same infirmity and was liable to be quashed.
Conclusion: The impugned drawback revision orders were unsustainable and were quashed. The matter was left open to the authorities to proceed afresh after notice, hearing, and a reasoned order confined to the statutory considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: A drawback revision order must be founded on the relevant statutory factors and supported by reasons that are germane to those factors; an order based on irrelevant considerations or lacking a speaking explanation is liable to be set aside.