Skip to content


Art Work Exports Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC623DTri(Chennai)
AppellantArt Work Exports Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....and by the same custom house. serial no.2730, inter alia, reads :- "all types of readymade garments made from textile fabrics but excluding garments made partially or wholly from... cotton... powerloom fabrics ...".the words 'cotton powerloom fabrics' have not been qualified to indicate any percentage of cotton, or to exclude mixed cotton fabrics from its scope. we, therefore, consider that drawback is not admissible in respect of the garments in question. we should presume that if circumstances attendant on the six cases referred to by the appellant are the same, the payment was in error and this by itself cannot justify payment of drawback in the present case. the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Judgment:
1. Appeal under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 praying that in the circumstances stated therein the Tribunal will be pleased to order duty drawback on the export of Syncot garments.

2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri C.R. Mehta, employee of the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following Order : 3. The present petition was filed by the appellants before the Government of India as a revision application against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras and made under No. C.48/309/79, dated 10-10-1979, upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Air Drawback), Air Complex, Madras, rejecting their claim for payments of drawback on the export of Syncot readymade; garments. By virtue of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, this has been transferred to the Tribunal to be heard as an appeal.

4. The claim for payment of drawback on garments exported under Shipping Bill No. 519, dated 7-6-1978 was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Drawback, Madras, as he found that they were made out of powerloom fabrics of cotton and viscose, and serial No..

2730 of the Schedule to the Customs and Central Excise (Duty Drawback) Rules, 1971 excludes such garments from its scope. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal for the same reason.

5. It has been contended before us that in terms of Public Notice No.80 of 79, dated 13-11-1979 such garments would be entitled to payment of drawback. This Public Notice amends the Customs and Central Excise (Duty Drawback) Rules, 1971 with effect, from 13-11-1979; they cannot have effect in respect of a shipment made in 3une, 1978. The appellant also states that drawback has been allowed in respect of shipments made in 3une, 1979 under Shipping Bill Nos. 2884, 2885, 2869, 2870, 2871 and 2875 for similar articles and by the same Custom House. Serial No.2730, inter alia, reads :- "All types of readymade garments made from textile fabrics but excluding garments made partially or wholly from... cotton...

powerloom fabrics ...".

The words 'cotton powerloom fabrics' have not been qualified to indicate any percentage of cotton, or to exclude mixed cotton fabrics from its scope. We, therefore, consider that drawback is not admissible in respect of the garments in question. We should presume that if circumstances attendant on the six cases referred to by the appellant are the same, the payment was in error and this by itself cannot justify payment of drawback in the present case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


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