Page 102 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

12 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

stances, nothing remains of the matter except the compensation that can be
claimed by the agent for its licence effectively remaining suspended for more
than two years while the appeal was pending.
10. The judgment and order impugned dated December 15, 2017 do not
call for any interference. The agent will be entitled to function as such, subject to
obtaining renewal or extension of its tenure in accordance with law.
11. If any application for renewal of the agent’s licence is pending, the
same must be disposed of within a week so that the first respondent is able to
resume its work and activities without undue delay.
12. APO No. 217 of 2019 and GA No. 813 of 2018 are dismissed with
costs assessed at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the first respondent agent.
13. GA No. 812 of 2018 stands disposed of.
14. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be sup-
plied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 12 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
GTN TEXTILES LIMITED
Versus
SECRETARY, M.F. (D.R.), NEW DELHI
W.P. Nos. 4846 & 4847 of 2007 and M.P. Nos. 1 & 1 of 2007, decided on
15-11-2019
Drawback - Duty drawback - Job work carried out by 100% Export-
Oriented Unit (EOU) - Goods not exported directly from 100% EOU, but came
back to DTA unit for further processing - Such situation not envisaged by rel-
evant rule and notifications - Assessee clearly not intended to be kept out of
beneficial sweep of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated 20-4-2000 -
Domestic tariff area unit entitled to Drawback at All India Rate in respect of
duty suffered on inputs utilised by 100% EOU units - Matter remanded to As-
sessing Authority to verify specifically whether duty was remitted on raw ma-
terials utilised in job work and if positive, assessee entitled to drawback of
duty paid in accordance with law - Rule 3 of Customs and Central Excise Du-
ties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - [Petition seeking declaration that
paras 2(a) and 2(c) of Notification No. 31/99-Cus. (N.T.) ultra vires Rules 3 and
4 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 and Articles 14,
19(1)(g) and 245 of Constitution of India dismissed as not pressed]. - A harmoni-
ous and purposive construction of the above Rule as well as Notifications, reveal to me
that it could not have been the intention of Legislature or the authorities concerned, to
deny drawback claim merely because some processes in the chain of manufacturing have
been conducted in the premise of EOU/unit of EPZ, if the assessee is otherwise entitled to
the benefit. Though the Notifications do specifically require that the export, after comple-
tion of job work, is to take place only from the EOU/EPZ, this can be given effect to only
in a situation where the entire process of manufacture/finishing is occasioned in such

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  102