TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The appellant herein was the sole proprietor of M/s. Rangi International and is carrying on the business of manufacture and export of readymade garments. During the period 1991-1993, the appellant exported garments to M/s. Pinky Originals Inc. and M/s. Indo American Design Workshop Inc., USA, valued at Rs. 45.75 crores, in respect of which the appellant was allowed duty drawback. However, the appellant was not able to realise export proceeds to the extent of Rs. 11.73 crores since the foreign buyers were declared bankrupt. Consequently, the appellant applied to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to write off the amount as there was no possibility of realizing the aforementioned export proceeds. The RBI granted permission to the appellant s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the issue that Rule 16A of the Duty Drawback Rules 1995 was not retrospective. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.09.1998 and the contention of the appellant that Rule 16A of the Duty Drawback Rules 1995 was not retrospective was rejected. It was further held that Rule 16A has to be harmoniously construed with the provisions of Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, recoveries can be effected in respect of exports made earlier and where foreign exchange has not been realized. It was further held that the drawback was not limited to customs duty but included duty on excisable goods as well. 7. As a consequence, the appellant deposited the entire sum of drawback with interest. 8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 16.06.2003. The High Court vide its impugned judgment and final order dated 18.11.2006 partly allowed the writ petition and held that the appellants claim for refund of the customs component of the drawback together with interest is rejected and the appellant is directed to be paid interest for the delayed refund of the excise duty component at the rate of 12% per annum on the Central Excise duty component of the drawback together with interest recovered from him, for the period 11.06.1999 to 12.06.2003 after adjusting the amount already paid to him. It was observed by the High Court that prior to the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, there was no provision either in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or in the Duty Drawback Rules, 1971 which stipulat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tantive provision was introduced by the Finance Act, 1991, with effect from 27.12.1991, there is no corresponding provision in the Duty Drawback Rules, 1971. The Department would, therefore, have to fall back on Section 142(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes the procedure for recovery of sums due to Government. When, ultimately, Rule 16A was introduced, it was only consistent with the existing provisions in the Customs Act, 1962, for recovery of drawback where export proceeds were not realised. In other words, when Rule 16A was introduced in the Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, no new provision was being introduced substantively for the first time concerning the customs duty component whereas it was as far the excise duty component was....