Page 208 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

254 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

CM APPL. 49608/2019 (stay)
21. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, this application is
disposed of.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 254 (Mad.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
SKYLINE EXPORTS
Versus
DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS. (EDI-DRAWBACK), CHENNAI
Writ Petition No. 7382 of 2014, decided on 23-9-2019
Drawback - Denial of benefit - Rejection of part claims relating to pe-
riod pre-30-6-2000 based solely on Public Notice No. 180/2000, dated 16-6-2000
providing for clearance of pending drawback claims - Assessee should not be
denied benefit of drawback based merely on Public Notice - Assessee satisfy-
ing all other requirements under relevant Notification/Scheme - No defect
memo has been issued to assessee pointing out to it defects in its drawback
claims - Violation of principles of natural justice - Claims denied under im-
pugned order sanctioned and to be paid over to assessee within six weeks -
Rule 13 of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback
(Amendment) Rules, 2006. [2012 (279) E.L.T. 485 (Bom.) relied on] [paras 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11]
Petition allowed
CASE CITED
Balaji Impex v. Union of India — 2012 (279) E.L.T. 485 (Bom.) — Relied on .................................... [Para 8]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 37/2000-Cus., dated 8-5-2000 ...................................................................... [Para 3]
M.F. (D.R.) Public Notice No. 180/2000, dated 16-6-2000 ...................................................... [Paras 3, 6, 8, 9]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - Heard Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the peti-
tioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner manufactures and exports cotton made-ups. During
the period 1999-2001, 35 consignments of cotton made-ups were exported to var-
ious countries. Drawback of central excise duty was claimed in terms of serial
number 63.06 of the drawback schedule at the rate of 7% ad valorem.
3. On 16-6-2000 there appears to have been a Public Notice bearing No.
180/2000 drawing attention to Board Circular No. 37/2000 (CUS), dated 8-5-2000
announcing the observance of ‘Drawback Arrears Clearance Month’ and extend-
ing the clearance period upto 30-6-2000. The public notice stated that pending
drawback claims that were unanswered would be scrutinised and the que-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  224