Page 110 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

20 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

double benefit was obtained. Subsequently, when an EOU was permitted to en-
gage in job work, the original condition stood modified to the effect that a manu-
facturer/exporter would also be entitled to drawback, provided the finished
commodity was exported from EOU/EPZ itself. A situation such as the present
where the goods revert back to the assessee for further processing has not been
envisaged and is thus not covered, though it is, in my view, also entitled to such
benefit. Such a situation is clearly not intended to be kept out of the beneficial
sweep of Notification 31 of 2000.
24. Thus, while answering the legal issue in favour of the petitioner
and setting aside the impugned order, I remand the issue to the Assessing Au-
thority to verify specifically whether duty has been remitted on the raw materials
utilised in job work. If the result of the enquiry is positive, the petitioner is enti-
tled to the drawback of the duty paid in accordance with law. Let this exercise be
completed within a period of three (3) months from date of receipt of this order
after hearing the petitioner.
25. W.P. No. 4896 of 2007 is disposed in the above terms.
26. W.P. No. 4847 of 2007 is for a Writ of Declaration declaring the pro-
visions of paras 2(a) and 2(c) of Notification 31/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 20-5-1999
ultra vires the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs and Central Excise Du-
ties Drawback Rules, 1995 and also ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14,
19(1)(g) and 245 of the Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is not pressed and
is hence dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Peti-
tions are closed.
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 20 (Tripura)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Akil Kureshi, CJ.
UNIVERSAL DRUG CENTRE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

W.P. (C) No. 1174 of 2019, decided on 4-3-2020
Destruction of confiscated goods during pendency of appeal - Peti-
tioner not having valid license at the time of import but license renewed sub-
sequently retrospectively - Destruction of seized drugs after the date of expiry
- Customs Authorities having acted bona fide, Department cannot be asked to
compensate the petitioner for incidental loss suffered by him on account of the
pendency of the proceedings - Petitioner neither applied for redemption fine
nor approached the High Court for release of goods on certain conditions in
view of impending expiry of the drugs - Petitioner could also have urged the
Customs Authorities to auction the goods well in time - Section 111 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962. [paras 8, 9]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2002 (143) E.L.T. 60 (Del.) — Distinguished [Para 10]
Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector — 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Distinguished ...................... [Para 11]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  110