9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 223 - CGOVT - CustomsFixation of Brand Rate under Rule 6(1) (a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - Held that - during the year 2008-09 that the applicant requested and the department took up the issue of re-open and re-consideration of such rejected claims for fixation of Brand Rate. Relevant show cause notices were issued and after providing due opportunity to the applicant, the case matter was adjudicated with the conclusion that the applicant herein should have filed the relevant and due appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) only and there is no provision in the law to re-consider and re-open these cases after a period of 4 years - applicant failed to exercise his legal and proper right and their plea to re-open their drawback claims for the purpose of fixation of Brand Rates is not admissible and orders of the original adjudicating authority under reference are upheld. After due consideration of all the facts on record including the above said original rejection letter dated 15-12-2003 thereby acknowledging, considering in detail and then finally rejecting the impugned claims for the reasons stated therein is of the considered opinion that such communicated decision may not be in the form of a formal detailed adjudication order, but is very much covered within the statutory provisions of wordings of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - applicant should have exercised his right of legal remedy of filing proper appeals before the jurisdiction (Commissioner (Appeals) within the prescribed period of 60 days which the applicant have failed to do - application of the applicant and the impugned Order-in-Appeal is upheld for being perfectly legal and proper - Revision petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Reopening of rejected claims for fixation of Brand Rate under Drawback Scheme. 2. Legal provisions governing the reopening of cases after a certain period. 3. Admissibility of appeals for re-consideration of drawback claims. 4. Application of statutory provisions under Customs Act and Central Excise Act. 5. Discretion of authorities in condoning delays in filing appeals. 6. Power of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) to condone delays. Analysis: Issue 1: Reopening of rejected claims for fixation of Brand Rate under Drawback Scheme The applicant exported engines under the Brand Rate of Drawback Scheme but faced rejection of 21 applications for Brand Rate fixation. The Department reopened 11 cases after 4 years based on Board instructions, while the remaining 10 claims were rejected in the impugned order-in-original. Issue 2: Legal provisions governing the reopening of cases after a certain period The applicant argued that there was no legal provision preventing the Department from reopening cases after 4 years. However, the authorities maintained that there is no provision in the law to re-consider and re-open cases after such a period. Issue 3: Admissibility of appeals for re-consideration of drawback claims The applicant failed to file relevant and due appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the prescribed period, leading to the rejection of their plea to re-open drawback claims for Brand Rate fixation. Issue 4: Application of statutory provisions under Customs Act and Central Excise Act The Government noted that the rejection of claims was covered within the statutory provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Issue 5: Discretion of authorities in condoning delays in filing appeals The Government emphasized that the discretion to condone delays in filing appeals should be exercised within the prescribed limits, as ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse. Issue 6: Power of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) to condone delays The High Court rulings highlighted that the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) has no power to condone delays beyond 30 days, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits. In conclusion, the Government found no merits in the applicant's revision application, upholding the impugned Order-in-Appeal as legally sound and proper, ultimately rejecting the revision application.
|
