PREMIER TYRES LID Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a manufacturer of, among other things, tubes and flaps. In respect of those goods manufactured and exported by them, the petitioner claimed drawback as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1972 ('the Act') read with Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') and Ext. P-l public notice dated 5th June 1972 prescribing rates of drawbacks. THE Assistant Collector of Customs by Exts. P-3 and P-4 held that the petitioner was not entitled to any drawback as they manufactured tubes and flaps out of natural rubber which was not dutiable under the Act or the Rules. According to the Officer, no drawback was payable on non-dutiable goods or dutiable goods on which duty had not been paid. THE decision of the Assistant Collector was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Customs by Ext. P-7. Ext. P-7 was taken up in suo motu revision by the Central Government which by Ext. P-8 order held that natural rubber out of which the petitioner's goods were manufactured was not dutiable and no drawback was therefore payable to the petitioner for such goods. However in respect of goods manufactured and exported by the petitioner in which certain dutiable ingredients had been used and on which duty had been paid, the Assistant Collector was directed to consider those specific cases afresh and pass suitable orders.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges Exts. P-3, P-4 and P-10 on the ground that, whether or not the articles manufactured and exported contained ingredients which were chargeable to duty, the petitioner was entitled to drawback as per the rates mentioned for the relevant items of Ext. P- 1.

(3.) S.75 of the Act reads as follows: -