2024 (10) TMI 1411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for Mr. N. Nithianandam For the Respondents : Mr. J. Vasu Junior Standing Counsel ORDER The Petitioner is before this Court against the Impugned Order No.239/2021-CUS (SZ) / ASRA/MUMBAI dated 30.09.2021 passed by the Respondent under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. By the Impugned Order the Revision Application filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the Order in Appeal No.Cus.No.115/2010 dated 01.02.2010 has been allowed. The Petitioner had exported consignment of woven woolen garments and had classified the same and had claimed the benefit of Duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962under Serial No.62.01 of the Duty Draw Back Schedule 1999-2000. 3. After the Duty Drawback was sancti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the respondents for enquiry permitting the petitioner to take the point of bar of limitation also, face the enquiry and proceed further. The respondents are directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioner and also the point of bar of limitation. If the point of limitation taken by the petitioner is sustainable in law, that has to be decided first. The respondents are directed to give the fresh dates of hearing. No costs. Consequently, the above WPMP is dismissed." 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of this Court, the 5th Respondent herein viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Draw Back passed Order in Original No.7606 of 2008 on 15.04.2008 whereby the Petiti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-in-original. The department contested the said order-in- appeal which was set aside by the Joint Secretary (Revision Application). As per the order of the Hon'ble Court, matter is again being re-examined. 10. Government observes that the respondent has claimed drawback on export of goods which were classified by them under S.S No. 62.01. It is further noted that S.S. No 62.09 covers woollen garments namely woollen suits/trousers/blazers/jackets excluding those made of shoddy fabrics/yarn. The items exported by the respondent i.e 'Woven woollen ladies vests' does not fall in S.S No 62.09 and there is no heading in the Drawback Schedule 1999-2000 which covers the subject exports of the respondent. 11. Governmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturing Technology Institute reported as 2002 (142) ELT 336(Kar) wherein it has been held that clarificatory notifications are retrospective in nature. Instant circular is clearly a clarificatory circular. 14. Government notes that issue clarified in the CBEC circular dated 25.08.1999 is akin to the issue in the instant case and justifies the rejection of the drawback claim in the impugned order in original which was set aside by the Appellate Authority 15. Government notes that the Appellate Authority has erred in holding the the Circular cannot be given retrospective effect and allowing the appeal of the respondent. 16. In light of the above discussion, Government observes that the Order- in-Appeal No.C. Cu....