2010 (12) TMI 1049 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application condonattion of dealy - drawback claims - claims rejected on the ground that claim had not been filed within the stipulated time of 3 months from the date of Let Export orders as prescribed under the Board s Circular No. 57/95-Cus., dated 30-5-1995 - Held that - let export order was given on 24-8-07 and 29-8-07 whereas the claim was resubmitted on the advice of department on 12-12-07. Even if the date of filing drawback claim is considered on 12-12-07 as contended by department, the same is with 6 months from the date of let export order, Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly condoned the delay and allowed the drawback claim, revision application is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing drawback claims.
2. Condonation of delay in filing claims.
3. Interpretation of guidelines for processing drawback claims.
4. Adjudication of delay in filing claims.
5. Contention regarding status of drawback claims.
6. Adherence to Customs Act rules for filing claims.
7. Departmental advice and its impact on filing claims.
8. Commissioner's authority to condone delay.
9. Government's review of impugned order-in-appeal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Timeliness of filing drawback claims
The case involves the rejection of two drawback claims due to not being filed within the stipulated time of 3 months from the Let Export orders. The rejection was based on non-compliance with Circular No. 57/95-Cus.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing claims
The Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the claims, leading to an appeal by the Commissioner of Customs. The central question was whether the delay was justifiable and whether the condonation was valid.

Issue 3: Interpretation of guidelines for processing drawback claims
The revision application challenged the interpretation of guidelines under Public Notice No. 44/96, emphasizing the availability of status of drawback claims in the EDI system and the responsibility of exporters to monitor and respond to queries promptly.

Issue 4: Adjudication of delay in filing claims
The adjudicating authority found the delay in filing the claims without valid reasons, in line with Rule 15 of Customs and Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.

Issue 5: Contention regarding status of drawback claims
The department contested the condonation of delay, arguing that exporters should have checked the status of drawback claims at the Export Service Centre, as per Trade Notice No. 44/96, suggesting that the delay was not excusable.

Issue 6: Adherence to Customs Act rules for filing claims
The case highlighted the adherence to Customs Act rules, especially Rule 13(1) of Customs, Central Excise Duties & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995, regarding the filing of manual shipping bills and the retention of the triplicate copy by Customs.

Issue 7: Departmental advice and its impact on filing claims
The respondent resubmitted the claim based on departmental advice, which was a factor considered in the condonation of the delay by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 8: Commissioner's authority to condone delay
The Commissioner (Appeals) exercised authority in condoning the delay, which was challenged in the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Customs.

Issue 9: Government's review of impugned order-in-appeal
The Government reviewed the impugned order-in-appeal and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay and allow the drawback claim, finding no fault in the process followed.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues and the legal interpretations involved in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.