TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....., Siltara, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as respondents) are engaged in export business and have filed three drawback claims on 4-3-2009 amounting to Rs. 22,113/-, Rs. 88,339/- and Rs. 2,20,847/-. The drawback claims filed on the grounds that the applicant had exported ferro manganese. 2.1 On scrutiny of the drawback claims some discrepancies were noticed. It was pointed out that drawback claims rate schedule was not submitted. The drawback is refund of duty of Customs and duty of central excise that are chargeable on imported and indigenous materials used in the manufacture of exported goods. Hence documents/statements to quantify customs duty/central excise involved on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods have been called,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and indigenous), Reductant (Coke & Coal), Fluxes (Dolomite), Iron Ore and Carbon Electrode paste for the manufacture of Ferro Manganese. 4.2 Appellate Authority has not appreciated the fact that out of the above mentioned items, Dolomite & Iron Ore which are the main ingredients for the manufacture of the Ferro Manganese has been procured without payment of duty hence the drawback claim is not admissible. 4.3 The order passed by the appellate authority is silent about the payment of duty in respect of indigenous manganese ore and coal procured by the respondent which is also main ingredients for the manufacture of the Ferro Manganese. The findings should be adequately discussed with respect to each item duly supported by a record of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment under Section 75(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 37(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 93A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The aforesaid provisions of law and the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 or any other law do not provide that in case of drawback claim as per "All Industry Rate" the exporter has to establish one to one co-relation of duty paid goods with export goods. The adjudicating authority has neither disputed the said submission of the applicant nor has noted the provisions of law which specify the requirement that exporter must prove the use of imported duty paid material or indigenous excise duty paid material in the manufacture of export goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has give....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s hence declared to be inadmissible for drawback. Secondly, he held that the applicant failed to file the drawback claim in time as stipulated under Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules which reads as : "Triplicate copy of the Shipping Bill for export of goods under a claim for DBK shall be deemed to be a claim for drawback filed on the date on which the proper officer of customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation under Section 51 and said claim for drawback shall be retained by the proper officer making such order." In this instant case the respondent party satisfies the provision of Rule 13 as the date on which customs officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation, itself....