TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bangalore Commissionerate, Bangalore a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition, which though had been set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) as per order dated 28-1-2004 in Appeal No. 19/2004 (copy produced as Annexure-B to the petition), having been restored by the Central Government in a revision petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore as per order dated 5-12-2008 passed in order No. 482 of 2008 exercising jurisdiction under Section 129DD of the Customs Act (copy produced as Annexure-E to this petition), the present writ petition to get over the adverse order. 2. This order had been preceded by a show cause notice and the show cause notice had come to be affirmed as under by the adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace Ltd. in Appeal No. C.St/106/02 in C/161/02 and C/St/107/02 etc. 4. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore who had occasion to peruse the appellate order being of the view that the appellate order was not correct nor applied the correct legal principles, directed the matter being pursued further. 5. A revision petition came to be filed before the Central Government against the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 129DD of the Customs Act. It is the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction whereby the Central Government has allowed the revision and has set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner and restored the order passed by the adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Duty Drawback, that in such a situation the revisional authority was wrong in thinking that the Appellate Commissioner was wrong in following the view taken by the CESTAT in the case referred to above, but should have followed the view taken by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to by the Commissioner of Customs such as : (1) UOI v. Cibatel Ltd. [1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 (S.C.)] (2) Basant Industries v. Collector [1995 (75) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)] (3) Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M.M. Khambhatwala [1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] 7. It is also submitted that the entire case law on the subject has been recently reviewed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and the view taken therein fully supports the case of the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly the Duty Drawback claimed by the 2nd petitioner being of the period October, 1998 to December, 1998. 11. The adjudicating authority having given a categorical finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the duty drawback claim for availing the benefit under the Notification No. 67/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998, particularly as the petitioner did not fall within the category of 'exporter' who can claim the benefits under this notification and on the other hand having misrepresented facts and having claimed a wrong benefit, which was otherwise not available to the petitioner and the denial of benefit being not merely for the non-compliance of the procedural requirement of obtaining prior permission to get exported the material man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100% EOU are not entitled to drawback under the notification. 28. Tne Board's Circular 67/98, dated 14-9-1998 issued from the file F. No. 305/147/93 FTT and 74/99, dated 5-11-99 issued from File F. No. 305/86/98-FTI communicated vide Bangalore Customs Commissionerate's Public Notice No. 117/98, dated 14-11-98 and 124/99 dated 17-11-99 respectively have also been relied upon. It is stated that it was the circular dated 5-11-98 did not specify the same drawback for such exports was barred prospectively only from 5-11-99. I find that even though the circular dated 14-9-98 did not specifically mention eligibility of drawback: it did not specifically mention that drawback was admissible. On reviewing the situation the circular dated 5-11-99 wa....