2025 (11) TMI 1735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Drawback Rules, 2017 read with Section 75(1) of the Customs Act for an amount of Rs.1,57,32,255/- aongwith its interest at the applicable rate and penalties under Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act and penalties of Rs.5.60 Cr. as well as Rs.6 Cr. under Section 114(3) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 with appropriation of already deposited amount and enforcement of bonds etc. solely on the ground that it was export of already activated mobile phones, during the period from May, 2019 to December 2019, is assailed before this forum. 2. Fact of the case would go to reveal that Appellant is a proprietary concern on whose shipping bill No. 9267199 dated 27.12.2019, investigation was conducted by the Officers of SIIB(X) Air Cargo Complex who n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ical territory outside India is mere 'configuration' of the product to make it usable and does not constitute "taken into use" under Proviso to Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules and therefore, nothing survived so as to make the order passed by the Commissioner enforceable. She further has brought it to the knowledge of this Bench that the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has attained finality upon dismissal of the SLP (CIVIL) Appeal Dairy No. 30758/2025, on dated 18.07.2025, that was preferred by the Respondent herein before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Appellant. She also argued on the issues of delay of four years in serving show-cause notice and imposition of penalties as well as redemption fine when goods were not availa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."taken into use" under proviso to Rule 3 of the Duty Drawback Rules. The Clarifications go beyond Section 75 of the Act and the Duty Drawback Rules since the interpretation sought to be given by CBIC is that unlocking/activation of mobile phones constitutes "taken into use". The said interpretation which is contained in the Clarifications is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Clarifications issued by the CBIC are quashed." The above noted observation is further fortified by way of rejection of the SLP of the Respondent-Department preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with a clear observation that no good reason was found to interfere with the common impugned order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, we have got no he....