Page 109 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] GTN TEXTILES LIMITED v. SECRETARY, M.F. (D.R.), NEW DELHI 19

tured from imported materials or excisable materials or by us-
ing taxable services as input services, on some of which only
the duty or tax chargeable thereon has been paid and not on
the rest, or only a part of the duty or tax chargeable has been
paid; or the duty or tax paid has been rebated or refunded in
whole or in part or given as credit, under any of the provisions
of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules made
thereunder, or of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and
the rules made thereunder, or of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of
1994) and the rules made thereunder, the drawback admissi-
ble on the said goods shall be reduced taking into account the
lesser duty or tax paid or the rebate, refund or credit
obtained :
Provided further that no drawback shall be allowed.
(i) if the said goods, except tea chests used as packing mate-
rial for export of blended tea, have been taken into use
after manufacture;
(ii) if the said goods are produced or manufactured, using
imported materials or excisable materials or taxable ser-
vices in respect of which duties or taxes have not been
paid; or
(iii) on jute batching oil used in the manufacture of export
goods, namely, jute (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta
fibre), yarn, twine, thread, cords and ropes;
(iv) if the said goods, being packing materials have been
used in or in relation to the export of -
(1) jute yarn (including Bimipatam jute or mesta fi-
bre), twist, twine, thread and ropes in which jute
yarn predominates in weight :
(2) jute fabrics (including Bimlipatam jute or mesta
fibre), in which jute predominates in weight;
(3) jute manufactures not elsewhere specified (in-
cluding Bimlipatam jute or mesta fibre) in which
jute predominates in weight.
(v) on any of the goods falling within Chapter 72 heading
1006 or 2523 of the of the First Schedule to the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975)’
23. A harmonious and purposive construction of the above Rule as well
as Notifications, reveal to me that it could not have been the intention of Legisla-
ture 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 completion of job work,
is to take place only from the EOU/EPZ, this can be given effect to only in a situ-
ation where the entire process of manufacture/finishing is occasioned in such
EOU/EPZ. In a situation such as the present, where parts of the process are car-
ried out in different locations, one can hardly conclude that this operational dif-
ference would result in denial of the benefit to the exporter. The original stipula-
tion that no drawback was available for export was imposed to ensure that no

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  109