TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 74 of Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of Rule 5(1) ibid against the goods exported under shipping bill No. 20037 dated 18-2-2006 for Rs. 654394/-. The drawback claim was filed on 6-4-06. Immediately on receipt of drawback claim the department issued deficiency note by way of endorsement on the covering letter itself on the same date calling for TR 6 challan in original, bill of entry, work sheet for drawback calculation and Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC). The appellant complied in respect of all the documents called for except the BRC. There was a delay by CITI Bank to issue BRC, which was issued only on 28-8-2006 and the appellants submitted the same to the department on 1-9-2006. 2.1 Subsequently, the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Customs Act. That the only requirement under Section 74 was to prove to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner the identity of the goods exported was the same as the goods imported on payment of duty and that the export had taken place within two years of import. It had been submitted in the Appeal Memorandum as well as during the personal hearing that the office report regarding the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner regarding the identity of the goods had been filed by the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner and that the export was well within the stipulated period of two years from the date of import. It had been stated by the applicant that these were the only conditions which were required to be satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fact that department issued a formal deficiency memo on 13-10-2006 itself makes it clear that the department itself did not read the original endorsement as a deficiency memo. Hence the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has totally erred in holding the claim to be time-barred. 4.3 It is further submitted by the appellant as soon as the endorsement was made on their drawback claim on 6-4-2006, most of the documents were submitted and the BRC which was the only documents submitted on 1-9-2006 could not have been submitted earlier as the bank delayed in handing over the said documents to the applicant. Hence this delay could not be said to be on their account. Moreover, the BRC was not at all required for the sanctioning of a claim u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... office note which clearly established the fact that goods were examined and identity of goods was established. There is no other requirement of submission of such documents under Section 74. All these documents are required for sanction of drawback claim under Section 75. In this regard, it is observed that the documents mentioned in Rule 5(2)(a) to (g) was filed within extended period and only BRC which is not specified in Rule 5(2) was only submitted as 1-9-06 for the reason that Bank issued the same quite late. The main conditions of Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 that the identity of re-exported goods is established w.r.t. to imported goods and goods are entered for export within two years from the date of payment of duty on importati....