9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1216 - AT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay in filing shipping bills - Circular No. 82/98-Cus - Held that - There is normal/initial period of submission of application under Rule 6/Rule 7 of the Rules is 60/90 days. The Adjudicating Authority had determined the date on 24-10-2006 as 90 days prior to 23-1-2007 (incl. 30 days condoned by the Commissioner) - there is no cogent reason for condonation of 30 days and therefore the cut-off date would be 24-11-2006 instead of 24-10-2006 - appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Revenue appeal against Commissioner's order on Brand Rate fixation for exported jute goods under DEPB-cum-drawback scheme.
Analysis: 1. Issue of Time Barred Shipping Bills: The Respondent exported jute goods under a specific scheme and applied for Brand Rate fixation after exportation. The Commissioner's order differentiated between shipping bills based on Let Export order dates, rejecting some and allowing others, without imposing a penalty. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging this decision. 2. Condonation of Delay: The Revenue argued that a strike in the respondent's factory should not justify the delay in submitting the application for Brand Rate fixation. The Adjudicating Authority calculated the cutoff date for consideration based on the strike period and other factors, determining it to be 24-10-2006. The Revenue contended that further condonation of delay should not be allowed beyond this date. 3. Application of Circular No. 82/98-Cus: The Member (J) analyzed the facts and circumstances, considering the standard submission period under the rules and the Adjudicating Authority's determination. Referring to Circular No. 82/98-Cus, it was concluded that the condonation of delay for one year was justified. The Member disagreed with the Adjudicating Authority's reasoning for condoning 30 days and adjusted the cut-off date to 24-11-2006. 4. Decision and Modification: After thorough consideration, the Member modified the impugned order, allowing the appeal in part. The decision was based on the lack of a valid reason for condoning the additional 30 days and adjusting the cut-off date accordingly. The final judgment was pronounced in open court, reflecting the detailed analysis and modification made to the original order.
|
