Binding appellate orders govern drawback claims, and recovery notices must be reconsidered after hearing before any fresh action.

Customs authorities must give effect to a final Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing drawback on duty-paid material, because revenue officers are bound by appellate decisions unless stayed or set aside. The Court noted that brass scrap, copper scrap and zinc were treated as deemed imported material for drawback purposes, so drawback could not be refused contrary to the binding appellate order. Show cause notices seeking recovery of alleged erroneous drawback were not quashed outright; the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's reply and decide the matter afresh after giving a reasonable hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs authorities were bound to give effect to the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing drawback on duty-paid material and whether the petitioner was entitled to drawback on the materials covered by that order; (ii) whether the show cause notices for recovery of alleged erroneous drawback payment could be ignored without fresh adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs authorities were bound to give effect to the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing drawback on duty-paid material and whether the petitioner was entitled to drawback on the materials covered by that order.

Analysis: The appellate order allowing drawback had attained finality and was binding on the subordinate Customs authorities. The rule of judicial discipline requires revenue authorities to follow appellate decisions unless they are stayed or set aside. The Court also noted that under the statutory scheme, brass scrap, copper scrap and zinc had been notified as deemed imported material for the purpose of drawback, so the use of such material in exported goods could not be denied drawback treatment contrary to the final appellate order.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to drawback in accordance with the final order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the respondents could not refuse to act on that order.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notices for recovery of alleged erroneous drawback payment could be ignored without fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The notices had been replied to by the petitioner, and the matter required decision in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court did not quash the notices outright, but directed the proper authority to consider the reply and decide the matter afresh while keeping the Court's observations in view.

Conclusion: The notices were not finally quashed, and the authority was directed to adjudicate them afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the petitioner's entitlement to drawback under the binding appellate order was upheld, while the recovery notices were left for fresh adjudication after hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities are bound to give effect to final appellate orders, and drawback claims cannot be denied contrary to such binding decisions when the statutory notification treats the relevant material as deemed imported material.

---