CESTAT lacks jurisdiction over duty drawback appeals under Section 129A, grants leave for revision applications under Section 129DD

CESTAT Kolkata dismissed appeals filed by appellant regarding drawback claims, ruling the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. The decision was supported by Delhi HC precedent in Sans Frontiers case, affirmed by SC, and Arihant Overseas ruling. CESTAT held appeals relating to duty drawback recovery are not maintainable before the tribunal. Recognizing appellant's genuine mistake in choosing wrong forum, CESTAT granted leave to file revision applications before Central Government under Section 129DD with condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to deal with appeals related to drawback claims.

Analysis:
1. Background: The case involved two appeals filed against the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Patna. The appeals were related to a dispute regarding the claim of duty drawback by the Appellant.

2. Facts of the Case: The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and supply of wagons and engineering goods, had entered into a contract with the Government of Nepal for the supply of Modular Steel Bridges. The Appellant exported two Modular bridges of France origin to Nepal and claimed duty drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Decision of Customs Authorities: The Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the duty drawback claim, leading to the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the duty drawback claim, prompting the Appellant to file appeals before the Appellate Tribunal.

4. Contentions of the Parties: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with appeals related to drawback claims, citing Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant, acknowledging the jurisdictional issue, sought leave to file a Review Application before the Government of India.

5. Jurisdictional Issue: The Tribunal addressed the issue of maintainability based on Section 129A of the Customs Act, which prohibits the Tribunal from deciding appeals related to drawback matters. Citing relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal noted the lack of jurisdiction in such cases.

6. Precedent and Legal Analysis: The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which held that appeals to the Tribunal against orders related to duty drawback were not maintainable. The Tribunal also mentioned that the Supreme Court affirmed this position. Another case cited by the Tribunal reiterated that the remedy against such orders lay in filing a Revision before the Central Government, not in appealing to the Tribunal.

7. Decision: Considering the lack of jurisdiction in dealing with appeals related to drawback claims, the Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Appellant were not maintainable before the Tribunal. However, recognizing the genuine mistake made by the Appellant, the Tribunal granted leave to file Revision Applications against the impugned orders before the Government of India as per Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962, along with condonation of delay.

8. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the Appellant were disposed of on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal in dealing with appeals related to drawback claims. The Appellant was granted the opportunity to pursue the appropriate remedy by filing Revision Applications before the Government of India.

---