TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a vide letter No. KASEZ/ 100% EOU/ii/130. Thereafter, the appellant have discharged the Custom Duty and Excise Duty in respect of imported Capital Goods, Domestic Capital Goods, Raw Material and Inputs, Process Stock of finished goods imported and indigenous Raw Material, Consumables & Spares, High speed Diesel which were available with EOU as on 31.08.2009. The duty was paid by 09.01.2010, thereafter the appellant started importing on payment of custom duty without availing benefit of EOU scheme. While exporting their goods, the appellant filed shipping bill under EOU because there was no final de-bonding of EOU. The Commissioner of Customs has issued No Dues Certificate i.e. NOC on 12.01.2010 to the appellant after verifying details of pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firmed by the Development Commissioner on 21.01.2010 but the appellant had paid the entire duty on the stock as on 31.08.2009. Therefore, any export made thereafter is eligible for DEPB and drawback benefit. He submits that since in principal approval for exit from EOU was granted by the Development Commissioner on 04.06.2009 and entire duty was admittedly paid on the stock as on 31.08.2009, thereafter practically the unit become DTA and they were paying Custom duty and Excise duty on their procurement of goods after 01.09.2010. 2.2 He further submits that the appellant are entitled for conversion of the shipping bills into DBK/DEPB Shipping bills depends on the following reasons:- "a) Condition (a) is not a mandatory requiremen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Atul Limited vs. C.C.E. & S.T.- Surat-1, 2022 (7) TMI 987- CESTAT Ahmedabad Bhavin Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Mundra, 2021 (12) TMI 89- CESTAT Ahmedabad Chief Terminal Manager M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., Tuticorin, 2023 (12) TMI 576- CESTAT Chennai Summer India Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. of Cus., Tuticorin, 2022 (381) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Chennai) 3. On the other hand, Shri AR Kanani Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, support the observation made by the Learned Commissioner in the letter by which the request for conversion was rejected. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is reproduced below:- "SECTION 149. Amendment of documents.- Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the custom house to be amended [in such form and manner, within such time, subject to such restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed]: Provided that no amendment of a bill of entry or a shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorised to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant is eligible for drawback benefits. We only hold that there are no grounds to deny the conversion/amendment of shipping bills in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act. 1962. The eligibility of drawback has to be looked into by the concerned officer." (Emphasis Supplied) 4.3 On the similar facts the reliance is placed on the following judgments:- Kwality paper Products Vs. Commissioner of Customs-Mundra, 2023 (7) TMI 890- CESTAT Ahmedabad Chief Terminal Manager M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus. Tuticorin, 2023 (12) TMI 576- CESTAT Chennai M/s. Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2021 (3) TMI 240 Bhavin Export Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commr. of Cus. Mundra, 2021 (12) TMI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, the respondents cannot take a stand that there was no "payment" of the 4% SAD by the appellant at the time of import of the goods. It follows as a consequence that if the appellant satisfies the conditions in Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 for the purposes of refund of the said 4% SAD, then merely because the facility of re-crediting the DEPB scrips has been taken away, the refund that the appellant is entitled to by virtue of the notification aforementioned cannot be denied. At any rate, since the Delhi High Court has already annulled the Circular dated 29.04.2013, the respondents are now legally obliged to consider the refund application preferred by the appellant independently, on its merits, to see whether the condit....