TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 793
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion to file application under Rule 7, at the time of export in the relevant Shipping Bills. Rule 7 enables the exporters to seek fixation of Special Brand Rate of Duty Drawback in respect of exported goods for which AIR under Rule 3 has been determined subject to the condition that the inadequacy of the AIR is established by the exporter and the intent to avail fixation of Special Drawback Rule is to be declared in the relevant Shipping Bill at the time of export. The C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 10/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 17-2-2003, clarifies that pending finalization of application under Rule 7 filed by the exporter, he may be permitted the AIR and the differential amount may be sanctioned after the fixation of brand rate under Rule 7. Further the C.B.E. & C. vide letter No. 606/04/2011-DBK, dated 31-12-2011, has clarified that exporters opting for fixation of Special Brand Rate under Rule 7 are required to make a declaration to that effect on the Shipping Bill itself. The said letter further clarifies that failure to declare Tariff Item No. as 9801 i.e. option for claiming fixation of Special Brand Rate under Rule 7 in the Shipping Bill at the time of export shows that the exporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued by C.B.E. & C., and by the force of this letter alone, both the lower authorities rejected the legitimate supplementary claim of brand rate application, without specifically mentioning details of any provision, rule, notification, circular, etc. 4.5 When a standing circular by the C.B.E. & C.-Circular No. 10/2003-Cus., dated 17-2-2003 clearly speaks of sanction of All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback pending fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback, neither of the lower authorities paid heed to its text rather misinterpreted the same to reject the supplementary claim. 4.6 In the written submissions filed during hearing, it is stated that Government in its Order No. 255/2012-Cus., dated 4-7-2012 has allowed fixation of brand rate of drawback under Rule 7 instead of Rule 6 of Drawback Rules. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 20-3-2013 was attended by Shri R.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel and Shri Robindra Kumar Dash Consultant on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the respondent department. The respondent department vide their written submission mainly reiterated content of impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& taxes suffered on inputs/input services used in manufacture of export goods, he may within specified period apply before the jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner for determination of amount or rate of drawback (Brand Rate). Here, it must be kept in mind that the AIR drawback determined under rule 3 or 4 of the Drawback Rules is specified in the Drawback Schedule by notification. The exporter can compare this with the facts of his case and decide if it is less than four fifth of the duties & taxes suffered and also whether he want to apply for fixation of Brand Rate in his case. (b) If the exporter chooses to opt for Brand Rate then the exporter makes declaration in the Shipping Bill mentioning drawback sub-serial/tariff item number as 9801. Then, within the specified time from let export date, the exporter applies for Brand Rate of drawback before the jurisdictional Central Excise authority. During the pendency of this application, the exporter may be allowed the facilitation under the Board' Circular No. 10/2003 subject to necessary conditions. (c) After the jurisdictional Central Excise authority fixes/sanctions Brand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y applicable to this case. 8.3 As regards applicant's pleading that they are entitled for supplementary claim under Rule 15 of Drawback Rules, Government observes that as per Rule 15, supplementary claim can be filed where rate of drawback determined i.e. AIR is revised subsequently under Rules 3, 4, 6 or 7 of Drawback Rules. In this case there is no such revision of rates. The C.B.E. & C. has clarified as stated above that exporter cannot claim fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback under Rule 7, once he has claimed on the Shipping Bill Drawback at AIR rate. As such the Rule 15 is not applicable in this case. 8.4 Applicant has relied upon Government of India Revision Order No. 255/2012-Cus., dated 4-7-2012 passed in another case of applicant. Government notes thai in the said case applicant had exported chillers in CKD/SKD condition and claimed fixation of drawback under Rule 6(1) of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The fixation of brand rate of DBK under Rule 6(1) was not allowed since there was a AIR brand rate of @1.1% fixed for the said item. The goods were exported in different consignments under 8 Shipping Bills. As per C.B.E. & C. Ci....