9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (1) TMI 28 - HC - Central ExciseDrawback Appellant demand for fixing brand rates for duty drawback rejected after declaring the shipping bill submitted by appellant as time barred The authority after go through all the fact dismissed the writ petition
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting application for brand rates under Rule 6 of Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 due to time-barred claims. Interpretation of Circulars No. 3/99-Customs dated 3-2-1999 and No. 41 of 2005-Customs dated 28-10-2005 regarding payment under DEPB scheme for brand rate of duty drawback. Analysis: The petitioner sought relief against the rejection of their application for brand rates under Rule 6 of Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995, due to time-barred claims. The Deputy Commissioner found that three bill of entries were filed beyond the prescribed period, which the petitioner did not contest or seek condonation from the competent authority. The authorities cannot extend the limitation period, but Rule 6 empowers the Central Government to condone delays, which the petitioner did not utilize. Thus, the rejection of the first three claims as belated was deemed legal. Regarding the last shipping bill, the petitioner imported raw materials under DEPB scheme without paying duty in cash, only debiting the DEPB credit. This raised the issue of entitlement to brand rate of duty drawback. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 41 of 2005-Customs dated 28-10-2005, which allowed duty drawback for payment under DEPB. However, the Court held that the circular's modification was not retrospective to Circular No. 3/99-Customs dated 3-2-1999, which explicitly excluded duty drawback for DEPB payments. The Court emphasized that the modification took effect only from the date of Circular No. 41 of 2005, denying the petitioner's claim for retrospective application. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The rejection of the claims under Rule 6 due to being time-barred was upheld, and the Circular No. 41 of 2005 was not applied retrospectively to allow duty drawback for DEPB payments made before its issuance.
|
