2014 (12) TMI 770 - CGOVT - Customs

Duty drawback claim - Failure to produce Cenvat credit non-availment certificate - Since the applicant failed to reply the query within 15 days, claim was made zero and the applicants were asked to file supplementary claims with relevant documents - Supplementary claims rejected by the original authority as time-barred - Held that - The applicant as an exporter was duty bound to rectify deficiencies and reply to query as pointed out by the department and non-compliance of the same rendered their claim liable for rejection. The applicant themselves stated that claims filed in EDI system were zeroed vide the scroll number dated 1812/23-6-2009 and 1813/1-7-2009. So he cannot argue that the said claims are still pending. Applicant was aware of the rejection of claims and the supplementary claim was required to be filed under Rule 15 in time. Further, they admitted that they were advised by the department to file supplementary claim, which they filed only on 25-1-2011 i.e. after lapse of more than 18 months. As such, the supplementary claims filed after lapse of stipulated time limit of 3 months were rightly rejected as time-barred. It has been also pointed out by the department that the applicant by suppressing the fact that their earlier supplementary claims were already rejected, filed fresh supplementary claim on 7-5-2012. This action on the part of the applicant is an attempt of getting illegitimate export benefit which was already rejected. Keeping the whole facts in mind, Government finds that the applicant were rightly held ineligible for drawback claim by treating the supplementary claim as time-barred - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing Revision Application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Rejection of supplementary claims for drawback by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Grounds for Revision Application filed by the applicant.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the Revision Application.
5. Eligibility of the applicant for drawback claim.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application was filed with a delay of 28 days, beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 129DD(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant attributed the delay to confusion regarding whether to file an appeal before CESTAT or a Revision Application before the Central Government. The Government, exercising its powers under Section 129DD(2), condoned the delay and proceeded to consider the application on its merits.

2. The applicants exported goods via two shipping bills and filed drawback claims through the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System. However, they failed to respond to queries raised by the department regarding the submission of necessary documents, leading to the rejection of their claims. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the supplementary claims as time-barred, as they were filed after a significant delay of more than 18 months. The Government noted that the applicants were aware of the rejection of their claims and the requirement to file supplementary claims within the stipulated time limit of 3 months. Additionally, the applicants attempted to conceal the rejection of their earlier claims and filed a fresh supplementary claim, indicating an improper motive to obtain illegitimate export benefits.

3. The grounds for the Revision Application included arguments that the original claims were pending due to technical issues, the drawback amount was not credited, bank realization certificates were obtained, and the department should have sanctioned the drawback through cheque payment instead of relying on the EDI system. The applicant also sought condonation of the delay in filing the Revision Application due to the need to re-draft the appeal papers after realizing the correct authority for filing.

4. The Government carefully reviewed the case records, including the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, to assess the eligibility of the applicant for the drawback claim. Despite the applicant's contentions, the Government found no merit in the arguments presented in the Revision Application. Consequently, the Revision Application was rejected for lacking merits.

5. In conclusion, the Government upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revision Application, affirming the decision to deem the supplementary claims as time-barred and the applicant ineligible for the drawback claim.