Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Lakshmi Knit Wear vs Commissioner Of Customs on 7 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/42459/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.735/2013,dated28.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Aircargo), Chennai]
M/s. LAKSHMI KNIT WEAR
APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
[AIRPORT & AIRCARGO], CHENNAI
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 08-03-2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 40436 / 2016 Submission of the appellant is that seeking of legal remedy inadvertently at the wrong forum should not deprive it from the substantial relief grantable in the eyes of law. He says that the case of the appellant squarely falls within the scope of the Circular No.36/2010-Cus., dated 23.09.2010.But because it could not pursue the legal remedy with the Air-Customs, that deprived conversion of the shipping bill into drawback shipping bill. There was no infraction of law made by appellant. It is further stated by the appellant that it being a manufacturer exporter, it is entitled to duty draw back and its entire export details are available on record for verification and entertain conversion of shipping bill to grant draw back. So also the material particulars appearing in shipping permits conversion to draw back shipment for no breach of law made by the appellant.
2. Revenue agrees that remedy was sought at the wrong forum. Other than this, appellants case is considerable within the scope of the circular.
3. Considering that there is no material departure to law made by appellant as is apparent from the impugned order as well as self same facts appearing on shipping bill shall not disentitle the appellant for conversion of such bill to grant draw back in absence of any malafide brought to record, the adjudicating authority shall consider the claim. It may be stated that in absence of any time bar provision in law, it is open to the authority to examine the merit of the case since there is no material on record to suggest that the issue is not considerable. It may also be stated that export is not in question and also the goodsexported equally weighconsideration for drawback claim.Once the authority is satisfied, that the appellant is eligible for consideration for claim of drawback, the appropriate quantum of drawback admissible shall be determined and paid in accordance with law.
4. With the aforesaid observation and direction appeal is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority condoning the delay in the facts and circumstance of the case without this order to be binding precedent. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ksr 08-03-2016 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 08.03.2016 Draft Order - Date of typing 08.03.2016 Fair Order Typing 08.03.2016 Date of number and date of dispatch 10.03.2016 2 C/42459/2013