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 goods manufactured using inputs procured under the DEPB scheme, including inputs on which duty was not paid in cash, remained eligible for All Industry Rate Drawback under the applicable drawback notifications and export policy.
Analysis: The governing notifications and export policy were read according to their plain terms. The relevant drawback notifications provided that the specified All Industry Rate Drawback would not apply where the commodity or product was manufactured or exported by availing the DEPB facility. On the facts found, the inputs used in manufacture had been procured by debiting DEPB and no duty had been paid in cash. The Court treated DEPB-based procurement as an availing of the scheme at the manufacturing stage and held that the exporter could not combine benefits under DEPB and All Industry Rate Drawback for the same export goods. It also applied the principle of strict and plain construction in fiscal matters and declined to permit any expanded reading of the scheme provisions.
Conclusion: The claim to All Industry Rate Drawback was not admissible, and the Revenue's view rejecting the drawback claim was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing drawback notification excludes goods manufactured or exported by availing DEPB, an exporter who has used DEPB to procure inputs cannot claim All Industry Rate Drawback for the same goods, and fiscal exemption or incentive provisions must be construed strictly according to their plain language.