2002 (2) TMI 138

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exporter is required to apply for brand rates. Against this order, appeal was filed before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by M/s. Parthas Exports. Vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the original order was upheld. 3.Against this order, the present Revision Application has been filed on the following grounds : (a) that the Commissioner (A) ought to have noticed that the case is hit by the doctrine of promisory estoppel; (b) that the Commissioner seriously erred in not holding that in the absence of a specified item for "Terry Towels not dyed" during the relevant periods, it was only appropriate to classify the item under SS Nos. 2702(5) and 6305(5); (c) that drawback is an established export incentive and the benefit of drawba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....02 the following, further submissions were made : (a) that the Asstt. Commissioner and Commissioner (A) have not properly applied their mind; (b) that during the relevant period, there was no separate head for the item in question but there was a general head No. 6305(5) only; (c) that sympathetic attitude has to be taken, because they at best have committed an error due to oversight etc. 6.Government has carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by the applicant. 7.The first issue to be decided is about limitation period. 8.Rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, is reproduced below : 'Where an amount of drawback and interest, if any, has been paid erroneously or the amount so ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to proceedings before quasi judicial Tribunal or Executive authority. 13.The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (55) E.L.T. 25 (Guj.) = 1990 (3) ECC 142 (Gujarat)] had given a landmark judgment. The Hon'ble High Court held that Section 11A of the Act occupied the general field while Rule 57-I dealt with a specific field; that in the circumstances it had to be presumed that the legislature did not intend the general provisions to be applied to the special cases carved by it, that, therefore general provisions had to yield to special provisions. 14.Drawback Rules are self-contained set of rules and are specially provided to deal wit....