TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Act, 1999 including any extensions of such period granted by the Reserve Bank of India. Later on, the Original Authority vide impugned Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of already sanctioned drawback and also imposed penalty. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the applicants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same as the BRC submitted along with the appeal did not show the date of realization of the export proceeds. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicants have filed these revision applications under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 That the impugned order is devoid of merit and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The order has been passed on factually inconsistent reasoning. As per the Show Cause Notice C. No. VIII/23/541/2006 ACC(BRC), dated 18-1-2007 the applicants were directed to show cause as to why the duty drawback to the tune of Rs. 51,929/- should not be demanded from them as the applicant had not produced the evidence of realization of export proceeds in respect of the export goods within the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudication orders. 4.3 In this case the show cause notice was issued on 18-1-2007 and the Order-in-Original has been passed on 28-3-2013 (which was received by the applicants on 3-4-2013). Hence the orders have been passed after 6 years from the date of show cause notice. While taking up any issue for a final decision, in all fairness, the applicants should have been extended another opportunity to explain their stand or to file the documents if any required in this regard. It is also submitted that deciding any case without offering sufficient chances of Personal Hearings is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 4.4 It may be seen that the Adjudicating Authority has come to a factually incorrect conclusion that the applicants have not filed the evidence of realization of export proceeds in respect of the said exported goods within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act, 1999, including any extension of such period granted by the Reserve Bank India though the applicants had filed the BRC on 7-12-2005 itself and again a copy on 25-10-2012 itself under proper acknowledgement, much before the date of personal hearing. The Adjudic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....H. As the issue involved in the intimation is on submission of BRC which has been done, there was no necessity to attend the PH hence not attended. The First appellate authority did not dispute the fact of filing the original BRC before the Personal Hearing Date. As regards the missing of date of realization in the BRC it is only a clerical omission which could have been sought for from the bank as the BRC is the bank document and the applicants cannot do anything on this. It is surprising, shocking and unfortunate on the part of First Appellate Authority to conclude that the amount was not realized as there was no date of realization. Copy of BRC is attached and it may be observed that Col. 1 to 14 have been filled with all details including the amount realized and it is not known how the First Appellate Authority can conclude that the amount has not been realized merely because the date of realization column was not filled in Column 15. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority are contrary to the factual position and liable to be set aside on account of the submissions made earlier. 4.7 In a similar case where the BRCs were availabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Drawback Rules, 1995, read with Section 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 9 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of goods & Services) Regulations, 2000 & Para 2.41 of EXIM Policy 2005-2009 that export proceeds need to be realized within the time limit provided there under in this case subject to any extension allowed by RBI. 9. Government further notes that the provisions of recovery of amount of drawback where export proceeds not realized has been stipulated Rule 16A of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 and the relevant sub-rules (2) and (4) of the Rule 16A reads as under : "16A. Recovery of amount of Drawback where export proceeds not realised - (2) If the exporter fails to produce evidence in respect of realisation of export proceeds within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, or any extension of the said period by the Reserve Bank of India, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall cause notice to be issued to the exporter for production of evidence of realisation of export proceeds within a period ....