Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Toyo Ink India Pvt. Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi on 5 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing: 17.8.2016
Date of Pronouncement: 5.9.2016
Appeal No. C/52027/2016-CU(SM)
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11/NK SINHA/COMMR/2016 dated 28.3.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi)
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
M/s Toyo Ink India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CC, New Delhi Respondent
Appearance Shri Puneet Bansal, Advocate - for the appellant Shri M.R. Sharma, AR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53368/2016 Per Ashok K. Arya :
Both sides have been heard.
2. The matter pertains to conversion of 24 free shipping bills to the drawback shipping bills for claiming of All Industry Rates of duty drawback for the goods exported under said free shipping bills.
3. The appellant M/s Toyo Ink India Pvt. Ltd. has been represented by ld. Advocate Shri Puneet Bansal who has inter alia submitted as follows :
(i) There is contravention of principles of natural justice.
(ii) The appellant filed application for grant of drawback by conversion of free shipping bills to drawback bills.
(iii) In the alternate, the appellant filed another application for grant of drawback without conversion of shipping bills. They placed reliance upon CBEC Circular No.36/2010-Customs dated 23.9.2010 (paragraph 4 of the circular).
(iv) No cogent reasons have been given for denial of drawback.
4. Revenue has been represented by ld. AR Shri M.R. Sharma who reiterated the findings given in the impugned order by Commissioner, Customs, ICD, TKD.
5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of both sides along with the case laws cited by them.
6. The impugned order says that the appellant did not provide any evidence of mitigating circumstances that were beyond their control because of which they were not able to claim drawback at the earlier stage or to comply with the requirements of Rule 12 of Drawback Rules, 1995 whereas the appellant claims that they were not given enough opportunity to explain their case and principles of natural justice were not followed by the adjudicating authority.
Considering the facts on record and the submissions of the appellant and the Honble Apex Courts decision in Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Visakhapatnam-II 2015 (325) ELT 801 (SC) and CESTAT Kolkatas decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. CC (Prev.), Kolkata 2016 (3) TMI-889-CESTAT-Kolkata, this is the right case for remanding back to the original adjudicating authority, who is directed to decide the matter afresh within one month of receipt of this order in terms of para 4 of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. dated 23.9.2010 and Rule 12 of Customs, Central Excise Duty and Service Tax Rules, 1994 after giving sufficient opportunity of personal hearing and production of evidence to the appellant.
7. The appeal decided by way of remand in above terms.
(Pronounced in Court on 5.9.2016) (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) RM 1