SENTHIL TEXTILE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant filed this application for early hearing of the appeal. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, after disposing the early hearing application, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing.

(2.) The ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue raised a preliminary objection in so far as the maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellants. He submits that in the instant case, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim of interest on the sanctioned drawback claim, under Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), under challenge. He submits that as per the first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, no appeal shall lie to the appellate Tribunal and appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), relates to the payment of drawback as provided in Chapter X of Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules made thereunder. He submits that the payment of interest under Section 75A of the Act, 1962, is arising out of the payment of drawback under Section 74 or Section 75, not paid within the stipulated period. Rule 14 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax drawback Rules, 1995, provides payment of drawback and interest. So, the payment of interest is connected with the drawback claim and the appeal cannot be maintained before the Tribunal. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercury Exports & Manufacturing (P.) Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata -, 2009 (246) E.L.T. 646 (Tri. -Kol.).

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants had exported 100% "Cotton Grey Power Loom fabrics" vide 343 shipping bills during the period 1999 -2001 under DEPB -cum -DBK scheme and claimed brand rate of drawback in terms of Board's Circular No. , dated 2 -12 -1997. But, the brand rate of drawback was not fixed by the jurisdictional Commissionerate, at the relevant period. The matter went up to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of another claimant M/s. Areva Industries Pvt. Ltd. - : 2004 (167) E.L.T. 135 (Bom.), who filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide judgment dated 15 -3 -2004, directed the Under Secretary (DEPB) to process the application made for fixation of brand rate of drawback. The Revenue filed SLP against the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. As per the direction of the Joint Secretary (drawback), the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, fixed the brand rate of 343 shipping bills of the appellants on various dates starting from 2008 to 2011, in pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 10 -1 -2007, in SLP No. 3480 -3483/2005 [2007 (209) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) : 2008 (10) S.T.R. 534 (S.C.)]. Thereafter, the Customs authorities sanctioned the brand rate of drawback of 343 shipping bills to the tune of Rs. 2,13,27,660/ -. Then, the appellants claimed interest of Rs. 3,12,60,672/ - on the delayed payment of drawback from the date of filing of brand rate claim up to the actual payment of drawback.