Supplementary Drawback Claim Within 3 Months Limitation of AEPC Valuation: CESTAT Sets Aside Customs Rejection Order [Read Order]
The Bench noted that No delay could be Attributed to Appellant as they Consistently Engaged with Authorities and took swift Action
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax AppellateTribunal (CESTAT) Bench at Kolkata, has held that a supplementary drawback claim filed after receipt of the valuation report from the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) is well within the prescribed limitation under Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
The Tribunal concluded that the cause of action for seeking the differential drawback arose only when the revised valuation was communicated, thereby rendering the rejection on grounds of limitation unsustainable.
In this instance, M/s Promising Exports Limited had challenged the decisions of the Development Commissioner, Falta Special Economic Zone, which had rejected their supplemental drawback claims as time-barred. In 2004, the appellant received a partial deduction for exporting cotton knitted vests and t-shirts to a SEZ unit.
Seeking revaluation due to undervaluation concerns, the appellant pushed the matter constantly, and the SEZ authorities eventually sent it to AEPC. On October 5, 2007, the updated valuation report that AEPC had published in September was received. The appellant later sought the balance drawback and formally filed an additional claim on 3 January 2008.
The Tribunal, comprising R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member), held that the AEPC's devaluation created a new cause of action under Rule 15. The supplemental claim could not be considered time-barred because it was submitted within three months of the date the new appraisal was received.
The Bench noted that the appellant had consistently engaged with the authorities and took swift action after the updated values were shared, therefore there was no delay that could be attributed to them.
Setting aside the impugned orders dated 12 and 13 December, 2017, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Development Commissioner, Falta SEZ, for review of the supplemental claims. The authority has been ordered to analyse the entitlement in light of the AEPC valuation and sanction the eligible amount of drawback.
The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as per law.
