Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2014-15/2368

Can an assessee file declaration for Drawback later on after clearance of the goods for export from the port without any such reasons which are under his control ?

Case:-COMMSIIOSNER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM  Versus  CARGIL INDIA PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014 (299) E.L.T. 290 (A.P.)

Brief fact:- This appeal is directed against an order dated 23-12-2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in appeal No. C/81/2009 [2010 (258) E.L.T. 298 (Tribunal)].
The assessee had filed 14 shipping Bills for export of soyabean meal through Visakhapatnam Port to Vietnam and Japan. The shipping bills were filed between 8-11-2007 and 23-1-2008. 3. While filing the shipping bills, the assessee did not claim any draw-back of duty under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Draw-back Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). In other words, the assessee filed free shipping bills for export. 4. Much later, on 6-8-2008 the assessee made an application to the Commissioner of Customs for converting the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills. During the course of submissions before the Commissioner in this regards reliance was placed by the assessee on Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules. This Rule reads as under:
"RULE 12. Statement/Declaration to be made on exports other than by Post.– (1) In the case of exports other than by post, the exporters shall at the time of export of the goods:
(a)    state on the shipping bill or bill of export, the description, quantity and such other particulars as are necessary for deciding whether the goods are entitled to drawback, and if so, at what rate or rates and make a declaration on the relevant shipping bill or bill of export that - .
(i)            a claim for drawback under these rules is being made;
 
(ii)           in respect of duties of Customs and Central Excise paid on the containers, packing materials and materials and the service tax paid on the input services used in the manufacture of the export goods on which drawback is being claimed, no separate claim for rebate of duty or service tax under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or any other law has been or will be made to the Central Excise authorities :
Provided that if the Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the exporter or his authorized agent has, for reasons beyond his control , failed to comply with the provisions of this clause, he may, after considering the representation, if any, made by such exporter or his authorized agent, and for reasons to be recorded, exempt such exporter or his authorized agent from the provisions of this clause."
 
The Commissioner considered the request of the assessee and came to the conclusion by his order dated 24-10-2008 that the assessee had not been able to give any explanation "for reasons beyond his. Control "for not making a drawback claim at the time of filing the shipping bills. The Commissioner also relied upon Circular No. 4/2004, dated 16-1-2004 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which stated that the Commissioner may examine and consider individual requests on merits and facts. Applying the provisions of the circular, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that since the goods had been exported and were not subject to any physical examination, the request for converting the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills could not be acceded to. Under the circumstances, the claim of the assessee was rejected by the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and that appeal was allowed by the order under challenge.

Appellant’s contention:-

Respondent’s contention:-

Reasoning of judgment:- They have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration :-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the assessee to convert the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995?”
In their opinion, the answer to the aforesaid substantial question of law must be in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
A plain reading of the Rules, particularly Rule 12(1)(a) makes it very clear that conversion of a free shipping bill can be allowed into a drawback shipping bill only if the assessee is able to satisfy the Commissioner that "for reasons beyond his control", drawback was not claimed. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the claim for duty drawback was beyond the control of the assessee. All that has been stated by the assessee is that it was not aware of the correct legal position and, therefore, it did not make the claim for duty drawback in the first instance.
 Apart from the fact that the aforesaid explanation is not satisfactory, Theyfind that the assessee did not make any claim for duty drawback for as many as eight months even after the shipping bills were filed. It is quite clear that the assessee made the claim for duty drawback only as an afterthought. There were no reasons beyond its control for making the claim for duty drawback earlier.
In view of the above, in their opinion, the Tribunal was in error in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and directing the conversion of the free shipping bills filed by the assessee into drawback shipping bills. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee that even otherwise, the assessee has a right to have the free shipping bills converted into drawback shipping bills. They cannot agree with this submission for the simple reason that Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules provides that conversion is permissible only if the assessee is able to give satisfactory reasons to suggest that at the initial stage, duty drawback was not claimed for reasons beyond its control. The assessee has not been able to furnish any such reason and, therefore, Theyare not inclined to accept the submission made in this regard by learned Senior Counsel for the assessee. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal is aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. The miscellaneous application is also disposed of.

Decision:-Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The law is very clear on the terms of claiming the drawback once the export has been done. It clearly states that an assessee can convert the free shipping bill into a drawback shipping bill only if he is able to convince the designated authority that the drawback claim was not filed due to reasons beyond his control.  In this particular case, the assessee was not able to prove the same and thus he was rightly denied the drawback claim.

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com