TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of Customs (Drawback). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed a duty drawback claim for Rs. 2,64,299/- under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide token No. 285/Sec. 74/2004, dated 16-11-04 for the re-export of goods namely Pump and Pump Controller under Shipping Bill No. 9001196 dated 17-8-04 through Air Cargo, I.G.I. Airport. The applicant stated that these items were imported vide Bill of Entry No. 447426 dated 26-2-03 and were integral part of substrate bonder. However, as per the examination report on the backside of triplicate copy of above mentioned Shipping Bill revealed that the identity of these goods were not established to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Export shed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2 That the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not referring to and rebutting the material evidence and factural evidence submitted by the applicants in his findings. The applicants had submitted before the appellate authority that for identification of the items in question, supplier's fax letter certifying that those were the integral parts of substrate bonder was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner as per his direction. This is evident from the note on the reverse of the relevant Shipping Bill, which reads "as directed by Asstt. Commissioner (Export) on N.S. attached, Shipping Bill No. 9001196 dated 17-8-04 and supplier's fax letter dated 25-8-04 states that goods are integral part of equipment imported vide Invoice No. 017173....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is seen that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is cryptic, laconic and without any legal justification. 3.5 That Sh R.K. Kashyap, the representative of the applicants made certain oral submission during personal hearing before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 23-4-07 stating that their green shipping Bill meant for drawback claim under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 was found in order and was, therefore, not defaced by the proper officer at the time of clearance of the subject goods for re-export. Sh. Kashyap also submitted that on the basis of the said Shipping Bill, the drawback claim was filed. There is no indication of this fact in the impugned order. For natural justice, it will be appropriate to go through t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1998 (97) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.) (vi) Synthetics &. Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 92 (Tri.) (vii) Shantilal & Bhansali reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 558 (GOI) (viii) Bhavin Internation reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 249 (Coll. Appeals) (ix) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Terai Overseas Ltd., reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 841 (Calcutta) (x) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. D.C. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). Finally, the applicant prayed for setting aside the order-in-appeal with consequential reliefs. 4. Personal hearings in the case matter were fixed on 23-9-09, 30-9-09 and finally held o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted some more documents there and then but as per notings on the impugned shipping bill the position as above was not clear. Later on the original adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) held these items as "not identifiable" with those of imported ones as claimed by the applicant. 7. In the case matter under reference Government notes that the applicable statute under reference in Section 74(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 which mandates that the goods should be identifiable to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs at the time of exports. Government on perusal of available records before this authority notes that while there is specific mention of goods as being "not identifiable" with the ....