9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 635 - CGOVT - CustomsRevision Application - Claim for drawback - time-limits - as per applicable Rule 5 of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is empowered to condone delay of 3 months only and that on proper satisfaction about sufficient cause which prevented the exporter from in time filing of the involved DBK claim. Any act done beyond such limit can only be considered as contrary to law and such sanctioned drawback as erroneous. The power to proceed for repayment/recovery are very much thereunder Rule 7 ibid which incorporates manner of sub-section (1) of Section 142 of Customs Act, 1962. Further there is no time-limits provided for this purpose in this applicable Rule 7 of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. Government finds that for the purpose of exemption from the provisions of these rules (i.e. for the purpose of condonation of involved delay beyond six months period in this case), the exporter has neither applied properly to the designated authority of Central Government as per Board s Circular No. 12/96-Cus., dated 16-2-1996 (under applicable Rules ibid) nor has even obtained any orders of such condonation. Therefore the involved delay remains as not condoned thus making the granted drawback as erroneous, Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company (1996 -TMI - 44281 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that customs authorities who are creature of Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to the boundations of time-limits as provided in the statute, no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and upholds the same, Revision Application is thus rejected being devoid of merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the show-cause notice dated 17-3-2005. 2. Legality and propriety of the initially condoned delay as per Rule 5 of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. 3. Consideration of the applicant's request for condonation of delay under Rule 7A of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Propriety of the Show-Cause Notice Dated 17-3-2005: The show-cause notice was issued to recover the drawback amount of Rs. 12,71,496/- erroneously sanctioned and paid to the appellant. The Department argued that the claim was filed beyond the stipulated period prescribed under Rule 5 of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. The appellant contended that the delay was condonable and that the notice was time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Government noted that Rule 7 of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, which incorporates the manner of sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not prescribe any time limit for recovery. Therefore, the show-cause notice was deemed legal and proper and not hit by any limitation clause. 2. Legality and Propriety of the Initially Condoned Delay as per Rule 5 of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995: The Assistant Commissioner of Customs initially condoned the delay of six months and 27 days in filing the drawback claim. However, as per Rule 5, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs is empowered to condone a delay of only three months, provided there is sufficient cause. Any act beyond this limit is contrary to law, making the sanctioned drawback erroneous. The Government observed that the appellant did not apply properly to the designated authority of the Central Government for condonation of the delay beyond six months, nor obtained any orders of such condonation. Consequently, the delay remained uncondoned, rendering the granted drawback erroneous. 3. Consideration of the Applicant's Request for Condonation of Delay under Rule 7A of the Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995: The appellant argued that Rule 7A empowers the Central Government to relax any provision of the said Rules and requested ex-post facto approval for the condonation of delay. However, the Government noted that the appellant neither applied properly to the designated authority nor obtained any orders for condonation. Thus, the request for condonation under Rule 7A was not considered valid, and the delay remained uncondoned. Conclusion: The Government concluded that the show-cause notice dated 17-3-2005 was legal and proper, and not hit by any limitation clause. The initially condoned delay was beyond the jurisdictional limit and thus rendered the sanctioned drawback erroneous. The appellant's request for condonation under Rule 7A was not validly applied for or obtained. Consequently, the Revision Application was rejected, and the impugned order-in-appeal was upheld. The Government emphasized that customs authorities must act within the time limits prescribed by the statute, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company.
|
