TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent exporter M/s. Kaling Vanidhya (hereinafter called the exporter) shed No. 16, Type A, Okhla Indl. Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 with IEC No. 0588053449 have exported woven woollen ladies vests under five shipping bills viz. 1069 179/9-7-1999, 1069 180/9-7-1999, 1069 181/9-7-1999, 1069 215/12-7-1999 and 1069 218/12-7-1999 and claimed drawback of Rs. 1,11,845/- Rs. 99,418/-, Rs. 99,418/-, Rs. 1,00,453/- and Rs. 1,03,560/- respectively under sub-serial No. 62.01 of the Duty Drawback Schedule 1999-2000. The total amount of drawback of Rs. 5,14,694/- claimed by the exporter was sanctioned in the month of July and August. 2.1 It was noticed after audit of export documents i.e. the exported item of "woollen garments" we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the impugned order-in-original and allowed the appeal holding that goods were classifiable under S.S.No. 62.01. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application, under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 That the order-in-appeal is erroneous inasmuch as that it hold that Board's Circular cannot be given retrospective effect. The order-in-appeal has failed to distinguish the fact that Board Circular is in the nature of clarification and when same issue is clarified it is obvious that the cause of such clarification would have been based on some obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the Central Excise Act. Thus the rules are subordinate to the Customs Act and cannot be read in isolation; (b) Rule 16 of the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules is only an enabling provision to recall the duty drawback but the procedure for the recall is contained only in the relevant Act, namely the Customs Act. (c) The very demand notice was issued in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act and therefore is subject to the limitation prescribed under the Act. The demand being beyond the limitation period, the very demand is time-barred and on this ground also the revision has to be dismissed in limine. 5.3 In their additional submissions they submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 5,14,694/- was sanctioned and paid to exporter in July/August, 1999. Subsequently, on the basis of audit objection it was noticed that said goods are neither covered under drawback schedule S.S.No. 62.01 nor any other heading and therefore they were not eligible for All Industry Drawback Rate. After due process of law, the demand for erroneously paid drawback was confirmed under Rule 16 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside impugned order-in-original. Now department has contested the said order-in-appeal on the ground discussed above as para 4. 9. Government notes that in Chapter 62, S.S.No. 62.09 covers woollen ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturing Technology Institute reported as 2002 (142) E.L.T. 336 (Kar.) that clarificatory notifications are retrospective in nature. 10. Respondent has contended that Rule 16 of Drawback Rules stipulates for recovery of erroneously sanctioned drawback claim and in this case there was no error/mistake at the time of sanctioning drawback claim and no error or mistake can arise on the basis of subsequently issued C.B.E. & C. Circular. In this regard, Government observes that adjudicating authority has categorically held that exported goods i.e. woollen garments were not covered in the drawback schedule 1999-2000. He has not decided the issue/classification on the basis of C.B.E. & C. Circular but on merit. So, it is wrong to say tha....