TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 699
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent to grant Duty Drawback, in favour of the petitioner, under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial enzymes. In the course of its business the petitioner had imported certain goods for repacking and for further sale. However, the imported goods were found to be defective in nature. Therefore, the goods in question were re-exported, after due inspection, by the officer concerned on 23.7.2009, vide Shipping Bill Nos. 13131, 13132 and 13136, dated 16.7.2009. Consequent to the re-export of the goods, the petitioner had filed a claim for Duty Drawback of 98% of the Basic Customs Duty and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 23.10.2009. On receipt of the said communication, dated 6.12.2010, the petitioner had attempted to re-submit the drawback claims, along with the required documents. However, the respondent had declined to accept the drawback claims on the ground that they were time barred. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petitions, before this Court, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner has preferred the above writ petitions before this court, without availing the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, an appeal could have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts which had to be submitted as per Rule 5(1) of the Drawback Rules. The petitioner had not submitted certain documents like the Bank Realization Certificate/GR Waiver and the Central Value Added Taxes Certificate. 9. It had also been stated that as per the proviso to Rule 5(4) of the Re-export of imported goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, any claim which is incomplete, in any material particulars, or is without the documents specified in sub-rule (2), shall not be accepted for the purpose of Section 75A and such claim shall be returned to the claimant with the Deficiency Memo, within fifteen days of the submission of the claim and it shall be deemed not to have been filed unless the exporter complies with the recruitments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Deficiency Memo dated 23.10.2009 issued by the respondent the petitioner had obtained the Central Value Added Taxes Certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate and had submitted the same to the respondent vide letter dated 24.12.2009. Upon furnishing the Central Value Added Taxes Certificate the respondent ought to have sanctioned the claim of Duty Drawback. 12. It had also been stated that the petitioner vide its letter dated 27.10.2010 had also produced the Bank Realization Certificate showing the details of the payments received even though such a certificate is not required for the claim of Duty Drawback for re-export, under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 as per the order passed by this Court dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of the export of the goods in question under Shipping Bill Nos.13131, 13132 and 13136. 15. From the decision of this Court made in W.P. No.11752 of 2009, dated 27.10.2009 which had been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 17.8.2010 made in W.A. No.1505 of 2010, and in view of the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, reported in Commissioner of Customs Drawback Recovery Cell Vs. Phoenix Cement Ltd. 2010 (259) E.L.T. 372 (Bom.), it is clear that the Bank Realization Certificate may not be required for considering the claim of Duty Drawback as prayed for by the petitioner. 16. It is seen that the petitioner had furnished the Non-availment of Central Value Added Taxes Certificate to the re....