Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hindustan Handlooms vs Cc, Amritsar on 19 February, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
COURT NO. II
Custom Appeal No. 104 of 2000-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 21/99 dated 1.2.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar)
M/s Hindustan Handlooms Appellant
Vs.
CC, Amritsar Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19.2.2010 Appearance :
Appeared for Appellant - Shri Jatin Mahajan, Advocate
Appeared for Respondent - Shri S.N. Srivastava, SDR
CORAM: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Order No.dated.
Per D.N. Panda:
The Appellants grievance is that six shipping bills which were subject matter of filing on 19.3.97, 28.5.97 and 7.6.97 were convertible from white shipping bill to green shipping bill for the purpose of drawback claim. But ld. Commissioner did not agree with the appellant for conversion.
2. Ld. DR Shri Srivastava submits that when the appellants claim for conversion on 3.11.97 was made by a letter of that date which was much belated stage after export of the goods, the claim was not considerable. So also he submits that when the goods were exported much after the respective notification came out, denial of conversion is not justified.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. Rule 12 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 permits for exercise of the right for exemption from the provisions contained in Rule 12(1) (a) of the said Rules. The proviso requires that satisfaction of the Commissioner is to be recorded before exempting an exporter from the applicability of the provision contained in Rule 12(1) (a) of the above Rules. Similarly that proviso also requires the exporter has to establish that there was reason beyond control for which the exporter failed to comply with the provisions of law. There is further requirement by the said proviso to record reason for appropriate order under Rule 12 (1) (a) of the Customs, Central Excise, Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995. Bare perusal of the impugned order does not throw light as to satisfaction of aforesaid ingredients of the proviso to Rule 12(1) (a) of the above Rules. In absence of an order passed in accordance with that proviso, there shall be prejudice to the interest of justice. Therefore the appellant deserves to be heard on its application on 3.11.97 afresh for an appropriate order by the ld. Commissioner. Consequently, the matter is remanded for passing a reasoned and speaking order as to exercise of the power under proviso to Rule 12(1)(a) of the aforesaid rules.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RM