TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wback at the rate equivalent to Central Excise allocation of rate of drawback shall be admissible. The goods in this case were exported in discharge of export obligation. The LUT/BG were discharged and licences were made transferable on 16-4-1997. The appellant applied for grant of quantity based licences on 6-6-1996, 19-9-1996 and 28-11-1996 which were issued to him on 20-6-1996, 7-11-1996 and 13-12-1996. Exports against these licences were effected during June to September, 1991, September, 1996 to November, 1996 and November, 1996. The exports are governed by the provisions of Exim Policy 1992-1997. Para 47 of Exim Policy provides for duty free imports of inputs namely raw materials, intermediator components etc. However, such inputs had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld cause unnecessary hardship. It has therefore been decided that in all cases where exports were made on a free Shipping Bill on or before 31-5-1995 in discharge of export obligation under a VABAL or QABAL issued/to be issued on or after 1-4-1995 and the exporter desires to claim drawback in terms of Public Notice No. Drawback/PN-4/95, dated 2-5-1995 or in terms of 1st Proviso to Note 2(b) of General Notes to Public Notice No. Drawback/PN-5/95, dated 15-6-1995, permission for conversion of Shipping Bills to Drawback Shipping Bills in relaxation of Rule 11 of 1971 or 1995 rules, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been accorded by the Central Government under Rule 15 of 1971 rules or Rule 17 of 1995 rules respectively". Ld. Coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneficial provision should be interpreted liberally. The ld. Counsel submits that the Drawback is a beneficial provision and thereafter even if there was a procedural delay which was rectifiable, could be relaxed. The appellants should have been given the benefit of this provision. The ld. Counsel submits that in view of the fact that the appellant was an actual user who exported the goods and had not claimed Drawback. He therefore prays that he should be allowed to claim drawback, the procedural requirement should be relaxed and the appeal may be allowed. 4. Shri H.R. Bhimashankar, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that the authorities below have rejected Drawback claim of the appellants on the ground that the relaxation under R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioning Drawback twice. Further, I find that CVD was paid by the appellant at the time of import of inputs in terms of Notfn. No. 80/95. The Public Notice under which the above notification was issued provided for payment of drawback equivalent to Central Excise allocation of rate of drawback claimed. Thus, there has been only a procedural lapse. The ld. Counsel submitted that the applicant was not conversant nor was his Customs House Agent well informed about the requirement of the Notfn. No. 80/95. I find that there are cases wherein it has been held that the benefit of beneficial provision should be denied to the appellant simply because he has not complied with certain procedural requirements. I find from the case cited and relied upon b....