Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.

Relevant facts involve in brief according to the petitioner as appears in this writ petition are as hereunder.

Main issues which require adjudication in this writ petition are as follows:

(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case impugned order of the revisional authority is erroneous both in law and in facts and in disregard to the Notification No. 39(RE-01)/1997-2002, New Delhi dated 22nd November, 2001 issued by the DGFT (Government of India, Ministry of Finance) by holding that the petitioner being 100% EOU could not claim duty Drawback on bulk tea in question procured by it from the bulk tea manufacturer and supplier which has admittedly paid the Excise Duty and that it is the supplier which is only entitled to claim duty Drawback and not the petitioner in spite of the fact that the said bulk tea manufacturer has not claimed the Duty Drawback on such deemed export which took place within the period from 01.06.2000 to 31.03.2001?
(iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case impugned order of the revisional authority dated 20th December, 2019 allowing the revisional application of the respondents customs authority against the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata allowing the appeal of the petitioner by holding in its favour by setting aside the order-in-original raising the deemed of Rs.10,23,000/- towards Duty Drawback, on the ground that the same was erroneously allowed by the Appellate authority to the petitioner being 100% EOU, is legal and valid?

Respondents further submit that the DGFT vide Notification No. 39 (RE-

1)/1997-2002 dated 22.11.2001 prescribes that this rate shall be applicable only in cases where excise duty has been paid on procurement of bulk tea by 100% export oriented units and units in export processing zones, considered as deemed exports in terms of Chapter 10 of the Import and Export Policy 1997- 2002.

Respondents submit that as per the provision of Import-Export Policy, the goods supplied by a DTA unit to 100% export oriented unit are termed as "deemed export". Paragraph 9.13 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 clearly states that supplies from the DTA to EOU units will be regarded as "deemed exports". Respondents submit that in the instant case excise duty has been paid by bulk tea manufactured and supplied to 100% EOU (the writ petitioner herein) treating the same as 'deemed export'. Therefore, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination being a 100% EOU can claim drawback on export goods since drawback is not admissible to a 100% EOU unit in terms of General Notes 2 (c) of CBEC Notification No. 31/1999-Cus (N.T) dated 20.05.1999. Thus, the drawback in the instant case should have been claimed by the bulk tea manufacturer who has paid the excise duty and supplied the impugned goods to the petitioner who is a 100% EOU unit in terms of DGFT Notification No. 39 (RE-1)/1997-2002 dated 22.11.2001.

Petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous in ignoring the Notification dated December 01, 1999 wherein sub-paragraph (c) was added after paragraph 9.13(b) of the Exim Policy 1997-2002. The said sub-paragraph

(c) clearly stated that Central Excise duty paid on bulk tea procured from licensed auction centre by EOU/EPZ units would be reimbursed by the Development Commissioner of concerned zone at all industry rate so long as levy on bulk tea in this regard is enforced.

Petitioner submits that a careful reading of both the notifications dated December 01, 1999 and November 22, 2001 issued by DGFT, which were specific to the issue, would clearly show that the 100% EOU is eligible for duty drawback in respect of bulk tea. There was no restriction against an EOU claiming drawback or additional condition which the writ petitioner was required to fulfil and the respondents had erred in acting contrary to the aforesaid notifications.