Skip to content


Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC1479DTri(Mum.)bai
AppellantMafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....that no rebate of central excise duty paid on fibres has been obtained under the central excise rules, 1944 in the shipping bill at the time of shipment of goods as required under public notice no.drawback/pn-27/28 dated 1.6.1978 issued under rule 4 of the customs & central excise duties draw back rules, 1971 should be condoned as they have now given this declaration along with their supplementary claim and have also obtained a certificate dated 7.5.1980 from the supdt. of central excise, navsari which confirms their declaration. they have pleaded that for the technical omission to give this declaration their claim for drawback of duty on the fibre content has been rejected and this . rejection is quite harsh. the departmental representative has argued that this declaration.....
Judgment:
1. This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The main plea put forth by the appellants in writing and orally is that their failure to make the necessary declaration that no rebate of Central Excise duty paid on fibres has been obtained under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the Shipping Bill at the time of shipment of goods as required under Public Notice No.Drawback/PN-27/28 dated 1.6.1978 issued under Rule 4 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Draw Back Rules, 1971 should be condoned as they have now given this declaration along with their supplementary claim and have also obtained a certificate dated 7.5.1980 from the Supdt. of Central Excise, Navsari which confirms their declaration. They have pleaded that for the technical omission to give this declaration their claim for drawback of duty on the fibre content has been rejected and this . rejection is quite harsh. The Departmental Representative has argued that this declaration was statutory and therefore mandatory and their failure to give the same cannot be overlooked. For the aforesaid reasons, he has opposed the appellant's plea.

2. We have examined these submissions. We find that the required declaration should have been made under the provisions of the Public Notice dated 1.6.1978 mentioned above, at the time of the shipment of the goods. The purpose is now served by this declaration made by the appellants with the supplementary claim and this has been further confirmed by the certificate of the Supdt. of Central Excise, Navsari.

These requirements can be permitted to be satisfied subsequently as has happened in the present case. We, therefore, feel that there is no justification in the lower authorities rejecting the appellants' claim for not giving the declaration at the time of shipment. The D.R.'s plea that the declaration was statutory and therefore mandatory is not acceptable. The requirement for declaration is incorporated in the Public Notice issued by the Government in terms of Rule 4. Under this rule the Central Government have powers to revise the rate of drawback fixed under Rule 3. The Public Notice is not a statutory rule or order and thus the lack of compliance cannot be considered as mandatory.

Besides, in their appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs, the appellants have pointed out instances in the past when such omissions were condoned. Accordingly, we condone this requirement and direct that the consequential relief may be given to the appellants after the examination of their claims.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //