2008 (7) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....port. While carrying out repairs, it appears the petitioner had imported certain components which independently had suffered some custom duty at the time of import. It is claimed that when the petitioner re-exported the 'Stone processing machine', had filed an application seeking refund of the duty paid on the components which had been imported for repairing the 'Stone Processing Machine' and for such purpose, filed an application under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 (an 'Act' in short) the relevant rules and quoting the notification issued in this regard. This application which had been examined by the original authority having been rejected for the reason that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 74 of the Act, claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rnment and Customs authority who had been put on notice about this petitioner. 6. Submission of Shri Naveen Kumar is that the authorities have totally ignored the Board Circular which had been issued for extending benefits in circumstances similarly situated as the petitioner; that the circular No. 40/2003-Cus dated 12-5-2003 enabled the authorities to examine a benefit claimed under one 'duty exports scheme' to be shifted to another scheme for extending the benefit if it is so found that an exporter was entitled for the benefit under a scheme different from the one under which the exporter had claimed the benefit; that applying this circular, the customs authorities should have extended the benefit which the petitioner had claimed under S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act which contemplates duty drawback on imported material used for manufacture of goods which are exported, did not arise in the petitioner's case. 10. While Shri Arvind Kumar submits that the word 'manufacture' used in Section 75 of the Act should be taken to be having the same meaning even when the imported goods are repaired and re-exported and that alone can qualify for a benefit under Section 75 of the Act which itself is a debatable point, when the provisions of Section 75 of the Act further contemplates a notification having been issued by the Central Government, which may stipulate compliance to certain provisions and adherence to a certain procedure, which are all matters for factual verification by the authorities, only such an....