Page 171 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. NAYARA ENERGY LTD. 353

2020 (373) E.L.T. 353 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Harsha Devani and Sangeeta K. Vishen, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Versus
NAYARA ENERGY LTD.
R/Tax Appeal No. 123 of 2012 with Civil Application (For Direction) No. 2 of 2019,
decided on 6-12-2019
1
Drawback - Brand rate, computation of - National Calamity Contin-
gent Duty (NCCD) whether to be considered for computing brand rate eligi-
bility under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules,
1995 - National Calamity Contingent Duty leviable under Section 134 of
Finance Act, 2003 becomes a duty of Customs by virtue of Section 12 of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 - Provisions of Customs Act, Rules and Regulations made
thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duties
and imposition of penalty applicable in relation to levy and collection of
National Calamity Duty of Customs by virtue of Section 134(4) of Finance Act,
2003 - Accordingly, elements of NCCD are required to be factored in brand
rate of Drawback duty in terms of clarification issued by C.B.I. & C.
Instruction No. 4/2019-Cus., dated 11-10-2019 - Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962.
[para 25]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Bajaj Auto Limited v. Union of India — 2019 (366) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) — Referred ........... [Paras 5.1, 5.3, 27]
SRD Nutrients Private Limited v. Commissioner — 2017 (355) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)
— Referred ............................................................................................................................. [Paras 5.1, 5.3]
Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India — 2007 (216) E.L.T. 16 (Raj.) — Referred ....................... [Para 5.1]
Unicorn Industries v. Union of India — 2019 (370) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ............... [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 27]
Union of India v. Modi Rubber Limited — 1986 (25) E.L.T. 849 (S.C.) — Referred .............. [Paras 5.3, 5.4]
Rita Textiles P. Ltd. v. Union of India — 1988 (35) E.L.T. 611 (S.C.) — Referred ........................... [Para 5.3]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 11/2005-Cus., dated 3-3-2005 ........................................................... [Paras 6.1, 6.2]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 106/95-Cus., dated 11-10-1995 .................................................... [Paras 6.2, 23, 26]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 22/2006-Cus., dated 21-8-2006 .................................................................. [Para 6.1]
C.B.I. & C. Instruction No. 4/2019-Cus., dated 11-10-2019 ......................................... [Paras 5.2, 5.4, 22, 25]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.Y. Divyeshvar, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate with Aqeel
Sherazi and Aayog Doshi, Advocates for Nanavati
Associates, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)]. - By this appeal under Section
130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the appellant
has challenged the order dated 16-8-2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Ser-
vice Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeals No. E/1561, 1597 to 1608 of 2010 [2016
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2016 (339) E.L.T. 148 (Tribunal), See also 2016 (339) E.L.T. A53 (Guj.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  171