TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BK-Cus) dated 17-8-2007 as passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs (DBK) Customs House, Cochin. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant herein filed Drawback Shipping Bill No. 79/04-03-02 under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 for re-export of machinery parts imported under Bill of Entry No. 106218 dated 12-9-2000 claiming 98% of duty remitted at the time of import. The claim was for an amount of Rs. 26,77,760/-. The claim was restricted to 50% of duty as the goods were exported after a period of 18 months and accordingly an amount of Rs. 13,38,881/- was sanctioned as Drawback. The exporter filed supplementary claim for the remaining amount, which was rejected, vide Order-in-Original No. 02/0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same thus upholding the orders of the original adjudicating authority. 3. In this Revision Application, the applicants have made the following main grounds of submissions : 3.1 The order-in-appeal dated 3-11-2008 is against the law and facts of the case. The finding that the applicant had made the claim pursuant to the appellate order dated 27-11-2003 only on 11-8-2006 which is beyond the stipulated time period is wrong and against facts. The applicant had made the claim pursuant to appellate order dated 27-11-2003 as per memo TP/DBK/2008 dated 3-2-2004 and it was acknowledged by the Department on 5-2-2004 and applicant had obtained certificate of delivery of the docket containing the claim memo. The letter dated 11-8-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... well as by the Respondents. During personal hearing, Sh. T.M. Vijya Kuram Assistant Commissioner of Customs appeared for and on behalf of the Respondent and re-iterated the facts of the case. He argued that party did not apply for drawback claim within 3 months of Commissioner (Appeals) order in terms of Rule 5(5) of DBK Rules and therefore impugned order-in-appeal may be upheld. This hearing was also attended by Sh. C.N. Sree Kumar, Advocate for and on behalf of the Applicant wherein it was argued that direction in Rule 5(5) (Supra) is not mandatory. It has the word "may" rather than "shall". Moreover, they had filed claim within 3 months which is disputed by the Department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the records of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....___________ (3 ______________ (4) ______________ (5) Where any order for payment of drawback is made by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Government or any other Court against an order of the proper officer of customs, the manufacturer exporter may file a claim in the manner prescribed in this rule within three months from the date of receipt of the order so passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Government or the Court, as the case may be." From above, Government thinks it proper that instead of talking about one word "may" from line three and analyzing it against the word "shall", it would be more appropriate and legal to consider and analyse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was submitted/filed on 4-2-2004 through courier Sky Pack Service Specialists Ltd. which was (said to be) received by the addressee (Department) on 5-2-2004 as per computer generated receipt of above Courier. In this regard Government scrutinized the above Sky Pack Courier Receipt No. 479056412 which is said to be original for sending the impugned supplementary Drawback claim. Government notes that his "Receipt" has consignee's Name/address as "The Commissioner of Customs Cochin - 682009." Except this address there is nothing on this "receipt" so as to indicate/confirm about the subject, nature and/or the details of documents (original or copies) which were purported to have been sent as supplementary Drawback claim. Along with this is one p....