CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench

M/s.Pawan Kumar Jain vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi

Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 28 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 CESTAT CK 0018

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.N. Panda, J · Manmohan Singh, Technical Member
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Customs Appeal No. 387 Of 2006
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

Shri Pawan Kumar Jain submits that at the time of restoration of appeal entire details were given in page 4 of the application in para 15

disclosing the draw back regularized by Reserve Bank of India. As against the disputed amount of Rs.17,97,768/-, RBI has regularized the claim

of Rs.14,66,014/-.That leaves a very small amount for consideration. He further relies on the letter dated 24.1.2013 of Oriental Bank of Commerce

addressed to M/s. Malvika Apparels stating therein that RBI has conveyed No objection from FEMA angle to regularize 28 bills / documents

(details in Annex-I) pertaining to exports.  In addition to this, Bank has advised to avoid such lapse in future transactions.

2.

It is prayer of the appellant that when RBI has regularized their drawback claim there may not be any difficulty for the department to sanction

drawback regularized by RBI. So far as difference is concerned, Revenue can examine the realization aspect and pass appropriate order.

3.

Revenue says, at this stage, that inquiry may be conducted to get the status as on date as stated by the appellant.

4.

To resolve the issue at the grassroot level, it would be proper for the learned adjudicating authority to examine the details in annexure 1 to letter

dated 24.1.2013 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce disclosing the shipping bills and also the bank realisation regularizing the draw back claim.

5.

Appellant shall be at liberty to plead both on fact and law before the learned authority below in the re-adjudication process. It will be preferable if

the matter is taken up expeditiously to bring an end to the issue since the matter relates to year 2006 and nearly 8 years have expired. The appellant

shall make an application to adjudicating authority within three months of receipt this order and pray for fixing the date of hearing so that re-

adjudication proceeding shall take its momentum.

6.

In the result appeal is remanded with the aforesaid direction.

(Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)