TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 894
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Central Excise, Pune-I. S. No. Revision Application No. Order-in-Appeal No. 1. 371/15/DBK/11-RA-Cus. P.I/RKS/23/11, dated 20-2-2011 2. 371/33/DBK/11-RA-Cus. P.I/RKS/36/11, dated 18-3-2011 3. 371/34/DBK/11-RA-Cus. P.I/RKS/38/11, dated 21-3-2011 2. Briefly stated the common facts of the respective case are that applicants have filed application under Rule 7(1) of the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 for fixation of brand rate of drawback, claiming drawback amount of (i) Rs. 4,76,110/-, Rs. 1,98,053/- and Rs. 3,08,852/- respectively. Additional Commissioner (BRU) Central Excise, Pune-I, vide impugned order issued under F.No. PI/BRU/D-IV/SA/65/10, dated 19-10-2010, F.No. PI/BRU/D-IV/SA/87/10 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reason itself the impugned order without following principles of natural justice liable to be set aside. 4.2 It is the policy of the Government that only goods and services should be exported and not the duty and taxes. Keeping the same in view their claims be re-examined otherwise they will be in loss. 4.3 Applicant has been claiming All Industry Rate under scheme B for all his exports and in this particular case there was inadvertent error made while submitting the Shipping Bills for exports. Further, applicant through his CHA has already approached concerned Customs port for amendment in the said Shipping Bills. 4.4 Brand rate application has been filed for fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs duty under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Credit. It is crystal clear that Additional Commissioner has completely failed to understand basic principle in fixation of drawback claim under Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules. Therefore, restriction of customs duty drawback on account of availment of Cenvat Credit of additional duty of Customs (CVD) is not tenable in law. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 20-4-2012, 31-5-2012 and 29-6-2012. Shri V.B. Kulkarni, DGM Indirect Tax and Shri A.S. Foujdar Consultant appeared on 29-6-2012 on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....they had made their exports as above the same does not make any difference and their present claim of fixation of Brand Rate of Drawback for the Basic Customs duties paid on imported materials used in export goods should still be admissible on merits as per their submitted grounds. 9. For these case matters it is noted that the applicant exporters had indeed filed their drawback claims under relevant All Industry Rate Drawback schedule entry of category 'A' which on verification found was inadmissible because of Cenvat Credit facilities as discussed above. Now, the applicant by terming the same as an inadvertent error and wants to change the same into a claim of fixation of Brand Rate of Basic Customs Duty. It is now not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reme Court's observations in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and other Apex Court/Supreme Court decisions that the statutes have to be interpreted strictly within terms and language of statute and without intendments or any liberal interpretation. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Indian Aluminium Co. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.)] and Hon'ble Tribunal in case of M/s. Avis Electronics [2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 (Tri.-LB)] has observed that when provisions are stipulated for doing a particular act in a specific manner then it would mean that any deviation therefrom is not permitted at all and it should be performed in that manner itself as per Rules. 11. In view of above, Government find....