HC allows duty drawback for 100% EOU on bulk tea under DGFT Notification 39(RE-01)/1997-2002

The HC set aside the revisional authority's order dated 20th December, 2019 that had denied duty drawback to a 100% EOU petitioner on bulk tea. The court found the revisional authority improperly considered grounds not part of the original show cause notice or adjudication order. The petitioner was held entitled to drawback benefits under DGFT Notification No. 39(RE-01)/1997-2002 dated 22nd November, 2001, having fulfilled all statutory criteria. The appellate authority's order allowing drawback was upheld, with the writ petition disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous order of the revisional authority concerning duty drawback claims.
2. Justification of the revisional authority's order setting aside the appellate authority's decision.
3. Sustainability of the respondents' new submission regarding the petitioner's concession.
4. Legality and validity of the revisional authority's order against the petitioner's duty drawback claims.

Summary:

Issue 1: Erroneous Order of the Revisional Authority
The petitioner, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), challenged the revisional authority's order dated December 20, 2019, which denied their duty drawback claims on 22 shipping bills filed between June 2000 and August 2000. The petitioner argued that the revisional authority's decision disregarded Notification No. 39(RE-01)/1997-2002, which allowed EOUs to claim duty drawback on bulk tea procured from manufacturers who paid excise duty but did not claim the drawback themselves.

Issue 2: Justification of the Revisional Authority's Order
The revisional authority set aside the appellate authority's order, which had favored the petitioner, on grounds not included in the original show cause notice or adjudication order. This was deemed improper as the revisional authority introduced new grounds not previously contested.

Issue 3: Sustainability of Respondents' New Submission
The respondents argued for the first time in court that the petitioner's representative had conceded to return the drawback amount during adjudication, which should disqualify the petitioner from claiming the drawback. The court found this unsustainable as it was not part of the original proceedings or documented in the affidavit-in-opposition.

Issue 4: Legality and Validity of the Revisional Authority's Order
The court determined that the revisional authority's order was not sustainable in law or fact. The petitioner was entitled to the duty drawback under the relevant DGFT notifications, having met all criteria. The court emphasized that the revisional authority's decision was outside the scope of the original show cause notice and thus invalid.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was disposed of by upholding the appellate authority's order and setting aside the revisional authority's impugned order. The petitioner was entitled to the duty drawback as per the statutory notifications. No costs were ordered.

---