TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me, the petitioner availed Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC), which was also known as advance licence as incentive for the exports made by the petitioner in lieu of drawback amount payable against exports under 69 shipping bills. (ii) Some disputes arose relating to payment of customs duty after availing the DEEC licence and eventually, it was resolved with the Customs Department for payment of duty demanded on exports made under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The petitioner made an application on 12.12.1994 before the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Chennai (JDGFT), Chennai-14 for conversion of the 69 shipping bills under the DEEC licence to drawback shipping bills and asked for the drawback to be paid for the exports made under the 69 shipping bills. But, no decision was taken in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner. Ultimately, an order dated 17.8.2007 came to be passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 rejecting the request made by the petitioner for conversion of advance licence shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. (iii) The said order dated 17.8.2007 was put to challenge by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020 passed by the second respondent and remanded the matter to the file of the second respondent for passing fresh orders. (viii) Thereafter, the second respondent passed fresh orders dated 27.7.2022 allowing payment of 100% drawback, however, restricting payment of drawback to 50 shipping bills falling under the jurisdiction of the second respondent and directed the fourth respondent to pay the balance 50% drawback amount to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Act. (ix) The orders dated 30.4.2021 and 07.5.2021 passed respectively by respondents 4 and 5 denying payment of interest were also put to challenge respectively before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai-1. Both the Appellate Authorities, vide two separate orders dated 08.8.2022, remanded the matters to the file of respondents 4 and 5 for passing orders with regard to payment of interest on delayed payment of drawback for the exports made under 69 shipping bills. (x) Subsequently, respondents 4 and 5 passed the orders respectively dated 06.12.2022 and 27.9.2022 once again for payment of the remaining 50% o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, it was made clear that it would confine to 50%. On appeal, the CESTAT set aside the order dated 14.9.2020 after recording that the petitioner would be entitled to 100% drawback. This order had become final. The interest was liable to be paid to the petitioner from 1994 till the date of actual payment of the drawback amount and it could not be limited to one year from 2021 to 2022. Payment of interest for the delayed drawback is a statutory right recognized under Section 75A of the Act. (b) To substantiate the same, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. B.T.Patil & Sons Belgaum (Construction) (P) Ltd. [reported in 2024 (3) SCC 645]. 7. The main defence that was taken on the side of the respondents was as follows : The petitioner would be entitled to the drawback claim only from the date of the order converting the advance licence shipping bills to drawback shipping bills. This order was passed only in the year 2020. The petitioner had submitted all the relevant documents only on 12.4.2021 and since the payment of drawback was made within 30 days, the petitioner was not entitled to payment of interest. 8. The case in ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills could be considered and that the petitioner would be entitled to only 50% of the FOB value of exports made for the entire 69 shipping bills. 13. Once such a finding is rendered, the right of the petitioner will have to relate back to the date, on which, the application was submitted by the petitioner on 12.12.1994. If the case is dragged on for so many years, the petitioner cannot be blamed since the first portion of delay is attributable to the concerned authorities till the year 2007 and the remaining portion of delay is attributable to this Court for having kept the earlier writ petition pending for ten years. Hence, the order dated 14.9.2020 passed by the second respondent permitting the drawback has to relate back to the date of application filed by the petitioner and the petitioner would be entitled to drawback from that date. 14. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that the order dated 14.9.2020 passed by the second respondent was taken on appeal before the CESTAT, which, by order dated 04.2.2022, came to the conclusion that under Section 75 of the Act, the drawback should be allowed wherever the imported materials were utilized in the manufacture of good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h respondent covered 50 shipping bills. 19. As against the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the third respondent since it pertained to 50 shipping bills. However, the third respondent, by the impugned order dated 13.6.2024, confirmed the order passed by the fourth respondent. The only justification that has been given by respondents 3 to 5 was that in so far as the 50 shipping bills were concerned, the claim for drawback was complete only on 12.4.2021 and that since the payment of drawback was made on 07.5.2021, which was within one month, no interest was payable. In the other case covering 19 shipping bills, interest was paid from 12.5.2021 till the date of transfer of the drawback amount. 20. The respondents have come to the conclusion that the interest was payable only if there was a delay of more than one month from the date of sanction. This interpretation given by the respondents runs contrary to the plain language used under Section 75A of the Act. This provision makes it clear that the interest was payable on the drawback amount from the date of filing the claim for payment of such drawback. Hence, it must r....