Page 208 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

742 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

dated 31-12-2013 in respect of the impugned goods stated that the root ends and tip
ends are arranged together; in some of the hairs, the process of coloring has been done; the
presence of cuticle shows that the process of making the hairs cuticle free has not been
done; and the cutting has been done from one end in most of the hairs. It has also been
observed by the adjudicating authority that the respondent had prior to Septem-
ber, 2011 classified the impugned goods under Chapter 67 so as to claim benefit
under the erstwhile DEPB scheme wherein the description of the goods remained
the same. Show cause Notice was issued in respect of 114 Shipping Bills and also
in respect of 16 Shipping Bills for which samples were drawn for testing alleging
that the export goods were rightly classifiable under Chapter 67 and not under
Chapter 5 where the rate of drawback is Nil instead of 1%. The case was decided
vide their Order-in-Original No. RLM/ACE/66/2015, dated 11-5-2015 holding
that the goods are rightly classifiable under RITC 67030010. Accordingly adjudi-
cating authority confirmed the demand of erroneous duty drawback amounting
to Rs. 1,92,97,378/- which had already been disbursed and paid to the respond-
ent and for the amount of Rs. 20,86,067/- in respect of Shipping Bills wherein
drawback amount had not been disbursed. Adjudicating authority also ordered
for appropriation of amount of Rs. 2,03,13,339/- and Rs. 17,04,874/- deposited
subsequently by the respondent in lieu of the same and also imposed a penalty of
Rs. 20 lacs on the respondent and Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs respectively on two
Directors of the respondent.
Being aggrieved the respondents filed an appeal before the Commission-
er (Appeals) who set aside the Order-in-Original and dropped the demand of
drawback confirmed against the 114 Shipping Bills filed prior to 12-12-2012 and
also remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority in respect of the bal-
ance 16 Shipping bills for which samples were drawn for testing. The applicant
filed an appeal before the CESTAT on 4-4-2016 along with a stay application on
28-6-2016. Hon’ble CESTAT granted stay Order No. 51095/2016-CU [DB], dated
8-8-2016. Hon’ble CESTAT vide their Final Order No. C/A/53549/2017-CU
[DB], dated 2-5-2017 (received by the applicant on 22-6-2017) held that the appeal
against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of Customs
Act, 1962 with regard to payment of drawback will not lie before the Tribunal
and dismissed the appeal of the Applicant. Accordingly, the applicant filed the
present Revision Application on 7-9-1997.
3. The revision application has been filed mainly on the grounds that
the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly dropped the demand of erroneous
drawback and penalty in respect of impugned 114 Shipping Bills filed prior to
December, 2012 by not taking cognizance of Statement dated 14-12-2012 of the
Director of the respondent. The test report of CFSL confirmed that the impugned
goods (hair) were ‘worked’. The respondent had themselves mentioned classifi-
cation under RITC 67030010 in respect of the past shipments when the impugned
goods were exported under DEPB scheme and later on they changed the classifi-
cation to RITC 0501 after the closure of DEPB scheme with effect from 3-9-2011. It
is observed that there was no Drawback incentive on the goods classifiable under
CTH 6703 at the material time.
Further the applicant has submitted that order of Commissioner (Ap-
peals) in remanding back the case to the lower adjudicating authority in respect
of the balance 16 shipping bills is erroneous in the light of Hon’ble Supreme
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  208