TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they have realized full amount of sale proceeds in respect of Shipping Bill No. 5669043 dated 26.04.2017 but could not submit the same due to unawareness and health issues, which he submitted now in the course of appeal. On perusal of copy of BRCS submitted by the appellant, it is found that the dates of realization of money by the bank are mentioned as 06.07.2017, 10.10.2017, 20.12.2017, 12.02.2018, 25.06.2018 & 29.03.2022. Complete sale proceeds were although not realized within the prescribed time limit as the amounts realized on 25.06.2018 & 29.03.2022 were beyond the prescribed time limit in violation of the provisions of Notification No. FEMA-176/2008-RB dated 23.07.2008, but keeping in mind the fact that realization of money from fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the bank on 25.06.2018 & 29.03.2022 are beyond prescribed time limit in violation of the provisions of Notification No.FEMA 23/2000-RB dated 03.05.2000 as amended by Notification No. FEMA-176/2008- RB dated 23.07.2008. Such late realization of export proceeds has also been condoned without any penal action vide the aforesaid order, which does not appear to be proper and legal as the same is liable to be confirmed and recovered under Rule 18 of Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 2017(earlier Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995). The appellant authority has also failed to take cognizance of this fact it would present a wrong precedence. ii) Para 1.3 of Instruction of CBIC, Department of Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posal afresh stressed that to check whether export proceeds covered by the Shipping Bill in question within the stipulated time or not. In the instant case also, the appellant failed to produce any relevant document issued by the competent authority for granting extension of time to realise the payments of export proceeds beyond the prescribed time limit in terms of Notification No. FEMA-176/2008-RB dated 23.07.2008. 6. Hence, in the backdrops of the above facts, the order No.85-CUS/APPL /LKO/2023 dated: 12.01.2023 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for setting aside the impugned order is not legal and proper and therefore not acceptable." 3.1 Revenue had filed along with an application for stay. While dismissing the stay application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... follows: "11. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 57T of the Rules clearly indicates that if the declaration is not filed within the specified period, the same can be considered after the expiry of period on sufficient cause being shown. In the instant case, the applicant clearly stated that they were not aware of such procedure for claiming Modvat credit and the moment they came to know applied for Modvat credit. The fact, that the applicant applied for Modvat credit has not been disputed. Once this is not disputed, it is not open to the respondents to deny Modvat credit on the ground that permission was not granted by the competent authority. There is no evidence that the application of the applicant was rejected. In our opinion, even if there is a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Union of India v. A. V. Narasimhalu - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Simifar observation was made by the Apex Court in the Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) in observing that once a view is taken that the party would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when they could have done so, had elapsed. While drawing a distinction between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nduly restricted and technical interpretation of procedure etc. is to be avoided in order not to defeat the very purpose of such schemes which serve as export incentive to boost export and earn foreign exchange and in case the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical breaches. In Suksha International v. UOI, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In the Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.), the Apex Court also observed that the ad....