P. Jyothimani, J.

The second respondent, Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry, has passed an order on 212. 2006, that the Diffuser which has been fixed in the mosquito repellant machines manufactured by the petitioner is not eligible for availing drawback claim as per Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is seen that before passing the said impugned order, the 4th respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Drawback), has issued a notice dated 212. 2006, captioned as "demand notice", in which, even though the 4th respondent has called for any representation from the petitioner, giving opportunity for personal hearing, it is stated in the said demand notice as follows:

"(2) It was further informed that on re-examination of the fixation of the Brand rate with reference to definition of Drawback which specifies that imported/excisable material has to be used in the manufacture of exported goods whereas in this case the Mosquito Repellent Machine which was imported was exported as it is by the exporter. Therefore the drawback amount sanctioned in terms of Brand Rate letter becomes recoverable & the details of drawback sanctioned are as given below:

.......