2026-VIL-1854-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1854-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Rejection of drawback claim on shipping bills for failure to seek conversion from Advance Authorisation Scheme to Drawback Scheme within three months under Circular No. 36/2010-Cus. - Appellant sought conversion of shipping bills including three air export shipping bills, which was approved after verification, the brand rate of drawback was fixed, and the drawback claim on the three shipping bills was rejected as the request was not filed with the proper officer within three months of the Let Export Order - Whether drawback can be rejected on the ground of the time limit prescribed in the Circular - HELD - The request for conversion covering the disputed shipping bills was filed later with supporting documents, whereas the earlier request related to other shipping bills, and the impugned order wrongly treated the earlier request as the relevant application. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable at the relevant time, allowed amendment after export on documentary evidence existing at the time of export and did not prescribe the three-month limitation. A circular issued by the Board cannot by itself introduce a statutory bar not contained in the governing provision, and circulars and guidelines are administrative directions that cannot be regarded as law - The rejection on the ground of time limit is unsustainable - Rejection of drawback claim on the ground that conversion of shipping bills was allowed by a non-jurisdictional Commissioner - Conversion of air export shipping bills from Advance Authorisation to Drawback Scheme was approved by the Commissioner of Customs (Sea) although the exports fell within the jurisdiction of the Air Commissionerate, and the drawback claim was rejected on this ground - Whether the unchallenged conversion order can be reopened at the stage of sanction of drawback - HELD - Conversion of the shipping bills was approved after verification, and neither that approval nor the subsequent brand-rate fixation has been shown to have been set aside or withdrawn. The conversion order remains unchallenged and the drawback claim cannot be rejected by reopening that order at the sanction stage without first dealing with it in accordance with law. The subsequent brand-rate fixation supports the claim - The impugned order is set aside, the jurisdictional authority is directed to process the drawback claim in accordance with law and the appellant is entitled to consequential relief.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?