- (1.) We have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava, Sri B.P. Singh Dhakray and Sri Shakti Singh Dhakray for the petitioners and Sri Siddarth Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioners are footwear manufacturers and were availing industry rate of drawback on the export of their goods under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback (Amendment) Rules, 2006.
(2.) It transpires that the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur issued a modus operandi Circular No. 1 of 2013 dated 9-5-2013 to all the Central Excise Officers inviting the attention to a decision in the Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur v. International (citation) Corrugators, in which it was held that the clearance of packing material to the manufacturer exporters are not to be treated as domestic clearance and that these clearances were to be treated as export. The said circular requested the department to bring the circular to the notice of the staff in field formation so that necessary action is taken therein. Based on the circular, the petitioners have received notices asking certain information and further intimating the petitioners that they are not eligible for all industry rate of drawback.
(3.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition contending that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur has no authority of law to issue such modus operandi circular and that circular/notification, if any, could only be issued by the Board under Rule 19(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.;