TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one (01) month from the date of issuance of the 'Let Export Order', i.e., 13.03.2003, till the date of actual payment of drawback. 2. The controversy in the present Appeal lies within a narrow compass. The Respondent's entitlement to the drawback amount itself is no longer in dispute, the same having already been sanctioned. The only controversy which survives is the point of time from which interest under Section 75A of the Customs Act becomes payable on the delayed payment of such drawback. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Respondent exported consignments of garments described as 'Ladies Tops' and 'Denim Shirts' through seven Shipping Bills, all dated 24.02.2003, claiming duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act amounting to Rs. 49,75,536/-. The goods were permitted to be exported upon issuance of the 'Let Export Order' on 13.03.2003. 5. Subsequently, the Department entertained a doubt regarding the correctness of the declared value of the export goods and issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.09.2003 proposing re-determination of the va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination regarding the commencement of interest, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, by the Impugned Order, modified the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.07.2022 and held that, having regard to Rule 13 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 ['the Drawback Rules'] and Section 75A of the Customs Act, the drawback claim was deemed to have been filed on the date of issuance of the 'Let Export Order', namely 13.03.2003. Consequently, the CESTAT held that the Respondent became entitled to interest upon expiry of one (01) month from the said date till the actual payment of the drawback amount. 12. Aggrieved thereby, the Department has preferred the present Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act. 13. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT: 13.1. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Impugned Order passed by the CESTAT is wholly without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It was contended that the first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act expressly excludes from the jurisdiction of the CESTAT all appeals relating to payment of dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication. It was contended that once the earlier orders stood set aside, they ceased to have any legal existence and could not constitute the foundation for fastening any liability upon the Department to pay interest for the intervening period. 13.6. It was further submitted that Rule 13 of the Drawback Rules had to be construed harmoniously with Section 75A of the Customs Act and could not be read in isolation. According to the Appellant, although Rule 13 deems the shipping bill to be a claim for drawback upon issuance of the 'Let Export Order', such deeming fiction cannot operate where the very entitlement to drawback remains the subject matter of adjudication on account of allegations relating to overvaluation of export goods. It was contended that the deeming provision cannot enlarge the scope of Section 75A so as to create liability for payment of interest even before the drawback claim becomes legally admissible. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: 14. The present Appeal raises the following questions for consideration: i. Whether the appeal preferred by the Respondent before the CESTAT, seeking interest on delayed payment of duty drawback under Section 75A of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal in respect of any order referred to in clause (b) if such order relates to,- (a) any goods imported or exported as baggage; (b) any goods loaded in a conveyance for importation into India, but which are not unloaded at their place of destination in India, or so much of the quantity of such goods as has not been unloaded at any such destination if goods unloaded at such destination are short of the quantity required to be unloaded at that destination; (c) payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X, and the rules made thereunder: Provided further that] the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, refuse to admit an appeal in respect of an order referred to in clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) where- i. the value of the goods confiscated without option having been given to the owner of the goods to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125; or ii. in any disputed case, other than a case where the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment is in issue or is one of the points in issue, the difference in duty involved or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding interest is, therefore, distinct from a dispute relating to the grant or admissibility of drawback itself. 22. The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in relation to a specified class of orders. The legislature has consciously confined the exclusion to disputes concerning payment of drawback and has not employed any wider expression so as to include every consequential or ancillary claim arising therefrom. Had such been the legislative intent, appropriate words expanding the scope of the exclusion could easily have been incorporated. It is not open to the Court to enlarge the statutory embargo by supplying words which the legislature has deliberately omitted. 23. This conclusion also accords with the settled principle that while a right of appeal is a creature of statute, any provision restricting or excluding such right must receive strict construction. A jurisdictional bar cannot be extended by implication. Consequently, unless the controversy falls squarely within the exception carved out by the legislature, the ordinary appellate remedy provided under Section 129A(1) must remain available. 24. Applying the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade thereunder, the claimant shall, within a period of two months from the date of demand, pay in addition to the said amount of drawback, interest at the rate fixed under section 28AA and the amount of interest shall be calculated for the period beginning from the date of payment of such drawback to the claimant till the date of recovery of such drawback. xxx xxx xxx xxx Rule 13. Manner and time for claiming drawback on goods exported other than by post. (1) Triplicate copy of the Shipping Bill for export of goods under a claim for drawback shall be deemed to be a claim for drawback filed on the date on which the proper officer of Customs makes an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation under section 51 and said claim for drawback shall be retained by the proper officer making such order. (2) The said claim for drawback should be accompanied by the following documents, namely :- (i) copy of export contract or letter of credit, as the case may be, (ii) copy of Packing list, (iii) copy of [tax invoice] [Substituted 'ARE-1' by Notification No. G.S.R. 723(E), dated 29.6.2017 (w.e.f. 26.5.1995).], wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the liability to pay interest with the date of filing of the claim and not with the date of its eventual sanction. 32. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that since the Respondent's entitlement to drawback remained under challenge in adjudication proceedings initiated by the Department, the liability to pay interest could arise only after those proceedings attained finality. This submission cannot be accepted. 33. Neither Section 75A nor Rule 13 incorporates any provision postponing the commencement of interest merely because adjudication proceedings are pending. Had the legislature intended that interest would become payable only after adjudication of disputed claims, it could have expressly so provided. No such qualification finds place in the statutory scheme. It is a settled principle that while interpreting a fiscal statute, the Court must give effect to the language actually employed by the legislature and cannot introduce words which are conspicuous by their absence. 34. In the present case, it is not disputed that the 'Let Export Order' was issued on 13.03.2003. By virtue of Rule 13, the shipping bills were deemed to constitute the Res....