TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, which were, in fact, manufactured by the petitioner's Unit at Madurai, in 100% EOU. 5. It was, during the searches, that certain materials were detected showing that materials of Tirupur DTA Unit was in fact processed at Madurai (100% EOU) Unit. The statements of Management/Officers were recorded, which revealed that the petitioner availed 'All Industry Rate of drawback' on the goods manufactured/processed at 100% EOU, Madurai. This prompted the Department to initiate proceedings for recovery of the customs duty and penalty. 6. The basis for initiating proceedings for recovery of amount was that the petitioner had failed to bring to the notice of the Department that :- (i) they were bringing material of Tirupur DTA, to be processed at 100% EOU, at Madurai, and sent for export. (ii) The petitioner misdeclared in the shipping bills about the processing of goods at 100% EOU. (iii) As per the conditions in General Notes of Notification Nos. 22/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 30-5-97, 67/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-7-79, 31/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-99, 41/2000-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-6-2000, 29/2001-Cus. (N.T.), da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y five thousand nine hundred and seventy three only] together with interest was accordingly ordered. 15. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, (Export), Customs House, Tuticorin. 16. The appeal was accepted by recording as under :- "(a) the issue stand covered squarely by the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of three reported judgments relating to the same appellant, i.e., M/s. Leela Scottish Lace Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. 611 (T), 2003 (156) E.L.T. 548 (T) and 2003 (159) E.L.T. 477. Appellants further submit the case reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 548, relates to export of readymade garments through Tuticorin Port itself. (b) the goods produced in the 100% EOU and the goods produced by the DTA are totally distinct and not one and the same and further the 100% EOU, does not have any infrastructure whatsoever to convert cotton yarn into cotton fabric. The assumption that all the readymade garments have emerged only at the 100% EOU by undergoing the process of cutting, making of trimming is factually incorrect and not supported by a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the facts of the case and further not correct in the light of several decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal rendered under identical circumstances. (k) The lower authority misapplied Circular No. 67/98-Cus., dated 14-9-1998 that claimant before the department in the instant proceedings is not the 100% EOU. These claimant is the DTA Unit and the submission placed was when All Industry Rate of drawback to be granted to a 100% EOU disentitling the same for a DTA is clearly misconceived in law. The lower authority has not dealt with this aspect in the order. (l) the issue arising out of Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Drawback Rules, 1995 and the definition of "manufacture" has already been dealt under identical circumstances by the Hon'ble Tribunal through the above referred rulings and in the circumstances order is not maintainable in law. (m) the references drawn by the ld. Authority vide Para 7.1 of the impugned order are clearly inconsistent both on fact and in law. Having conceded the fact that there is nothing on record to show or prove that the expenses relating to stitching,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on goods, and the term manufacture shall be construed accordingly." In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 3 read with Rule 4, of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1955, Govt. of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), the Central Government determined the rates of Drawback vides the Notification Nos. 22/97, 67/98, 31/99, 41/2000 and 21/2001 during the period in which the respondents claimed and were sanctioned drawback on the exported goods. Gov. notes that as per the condition No. 2 of the general notes of these notifications, All Industry rate of drawback is not available to the export goods manufactured and/or exported by a unit licensed as 100% EOU in terms of the relevant provisions of the Import and Export policy in force. For proper appreciation of the issue Govt. extracts condition No. 2 of the general notes of the notification. 67/98-Customs (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998 as under :- General Notes 1. ............ 2. The rates of drawback specified in the said Table shall not be applicable to export of a commodity of product if such commodity or produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication No. 31/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999, specifically rules out the application of All Industry Rates to products manufactured partly or wholly in a warehouse u/s. 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. Govt. further, notes that C.B.E. & C. vide their Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated 20-4-2000, clarifies that the DTA Units, are not eligible for All Industry Rate of Drawback for the goods processed by EOU units. Govt. further notes that various circular have been issued from time-to-time by C.B.E. & C. permitting utilisation of ideal capacity of the EOU units. Thus, in Circular No. 67/98, dated 14-9-1998, it was specifically decided by C.B.E. & C. that units in the EOU may be permitted to undertake job work from the DTA units provided the finished products produced by such EOU are exported directly. However, as per facts on record no permission was granted to the respondent or the 100% EOU to process or manufacture goods for or on behalf of the DTA Units. Moreover, even if there was any permission granted to EOU for job work, under the C.B.E. & C. Circular mentioned above. Govt. is of the considered opinion that All Industry Rate of Drawback is not admissible on the export of the im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) and its explanation and Rule 4(3) and its explanation were brought into force for the first time in line with the removal of unconditional exemption and charging of duty on readymade garments falling under Chapters 61 and 62 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 w.e.f. 1-3-2002. The demand/recovery of drawback in the instant case is between the period from 1998 to 2001 hence the insertion of a new rule necessitated owing to emerging situations. In this case, the dutiability of readymade garments to Central Excise w.e.f. 1-3-2002 and its expounding of the same by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Leela Scotish Lace Ltd., cannot be made applicable. In the instant case it is admitted fact that impugned goods has been manufactured in FGM Madurai (100% EOU). Government further notes that Ministry of Finance vide Circular No. 31/2000 (F. No. 609/41/2000-DBK, dated 20th April, 2000) has clarified that in case goods are manufactured and exported from EOU no drawback rate under all industry rate is admissible. However, on such goods brand rate @ 5% has been allowed. Government therefore, of the considered opinion that the ratio of the cited judgment is not applicable in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said goods, being packing materials have been used in or in relation to the export of - (1) jute yarn (including Bimipatam jute or mesta fibre), twist, twine, thread and ropes in which jute yam predominates in weight : (2) jute fabrics (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre), in which jute predominates in weight; (3) jute manufactures not elsewhere specified (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre) in which jute predominates in weight. (v) on any of the goods falling within Chapter 72 heading 1006 or 2523 of the of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975). 21. The reference is also made to the Notification No. 22/97-Cus. (N.T.), 30th May, 1997, to claim that the petitioner was entitled to full drawback, as specified in the table attached to the notification. 22. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Circular No. 67/98-Cus., dated 14th September, 1998, Circular No. 74/99, dated 5-1-1999 and Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated 20th April, 2000, in denying the relief of drawback, dese....