2007 (6) TMI 221

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se, Pondicherry, has passed an order on 29-12-2006, that the Diffuser which has been fixed in the mosquito repellant machines manufactured by the petitioner is not eligible for availing drawback claim as per Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is seen that before passing the said impugned order, the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback), has issued a notice dated 26-12-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uito repellants and as far as the diffuser is concerned, it forms part of the entire mosquito repellant, and the same is imported and after fitting the same as machine it is marketed. As a complete set it is exhibited and therefore there was no question of separating diffuser for the purpose of denying the drawback claim as per the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. 3. The le....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the learned single Judge stating that by virtue of the notice dated 26-12-2006, the petitioner can always give explanation and the impugned order dated 29-12-2006 of the second respondent is only a piece of information, is not proper. 4. On the other hand, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General would contend that inasmuch as the learned single Judge has held that notice d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as respondents and perused the records, including the order of the learned single judge. 6. Inasmuch as it is fairly conceded by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the notice dated 26-12-2006 should be treated only as a show cause notice, we make it clear that pursuant to the said show cause notice, the petitioner shall ....