Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesCESTAT Allows Shipping Bills Conversions From Drawback Scheme To Advance Authorization Scheme...

CESTAT Allows Shipping Bills Conversions From Drawback Scheme To Advance Authorization Scheme Beyond Three Months

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Ahmedabad bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed shipping bills conversions from drawback scheme to advance authorization scheme beyond three months.

The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical  Member) has observed that the limitation of three months was introduced by the Circular 36/2010 dated 23.09.2010. The High Court of Gujarat in the case of Messrs Mahalaxmi Rub Tech Limited has set aside the said requirement of filing the application for conversion within a period of three months as ultravirus, Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India as well as ultravirus section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The special leave petition filed by the Revenue against the said order before Hon’ble Apex Court has been rejected.

The appellant/assessee had made a request for amendment of the shipping bill under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. At the time of filing the shipping bills the appellants had filed the shipping bills under draw back scheme however they later on sought to convert the same to shipping bills under advance authorization scheme. 

The request was rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the request for conversion was made by the exporter beyond the period of three months. 

The requirement of filing the amendment application under section 149 within the period of three months was introduced not by law but by CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 in para 3(a).

The tribunal held that the sole ground for rejection is the delay of more than three months in filing the application in terms of Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010. Since the Circular itself has been set aside by the High Court of Gujarat, reliance on the Circular cannot be sustained.

Read More: No Service Tax Payable On Mandap Keeper Services: CESTAT

Case Details

Case Title: PCBL Ltd. Versus C.C. Mundra

Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 10073 of 2024- DB

Date: 28.11.2024

Counsel For Appellant: CA Niraj Baheti

Counsel For Respondent: Sanjay Kumar

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Supreme Court Questions PILs in Tender Disputes, Allows Contractor to Complete PMGSY Road Project

The Supreme Court has observed that disputes involving the comparative evaluation of competing bidders...

Arbitration Venue Doesn’t Automatically Become Juridical Seat: Supreme Court Restores S. 34 Challenge

The Supreme Court has held that merely conducting arbitration proceedings at a particular location...

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on States’ Power to Levy Additional Sales Tax, Surcharge or Cess

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a significant constitutional question concerning the...

Supreme Court Refers Challenge to Election Commissioners Appointment Law to Constitution Bench Amid Split Verdict

The Supreme Court has directed that a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity...

More like this

Supreme Court Questions PILs in Tender Disputes, Allows Contractor to Complete PMGSY Road Project

The Supreme Court has observed that disputes involving the comparative evaluation of competing bidders...

Arbitration Venue Doesn’t Automatically Become Juridical Seat: Supreme Court Restores S. 34 Challenge

The Supreme Court has held that merely conducting arbitration proceedings at a particular location...

Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on States’ Power to Levy Additional Sales Tax, Surcharge or Cess

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on a significant constitutional question concerning the...