2018 (1) TMI 1455 - CGOVT - Customs

Duty Drawback - supplementary claim - rejection on the ground of being time barred - Rule 15(1) & (2) of Drawback Rules, 1995 - Held that - Supplementary claim is governed by the provisions of Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules as per which where the exporter finds that the amount of drawback paid to him is lesser than what he is entitled to, he may prefer a supplementary claim within a period of three months. As per Rule 15(i)(ii) of Rules, the three months period is counted from the date of payment/settlement of the original drawback claim by the proper officer. However, the time period of three months can be extended by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs for a further period of nine months on being satisfied that the exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his supplementary claim within the aforesaid period of three months. In the instant case the applicant has not received any drawback claim and instead their original drawback claim was entirely rejected as mentioned in Commissioner (Appeals) s order. In fact it appears that the applicant has filed the drawback claim for the second time after rejection of the earlier claim rejection of the earlier claim as the second claim is also for the same amount of ₹ 1,64,740/-. Therefore, on the face of it, it is not even a supplementary claim. Thus, the primary condition for filing the Supplementary Drawback claim which is payment of drawback of duty in first place is not attracted in this case as is envisaged in Rule 15. The Government finds that the original authority and appellate authority have correctly rejected the applicant s claim - revision application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of supplementary drawback claim by Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Interpretation of Rule 15 of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.
3. Time limitation for filing supplementary drawback claims.
4. Competency of Assistant/Deputy Commissioner to condone delay in filing claims.

Analysis:
The case involved a Revision Application filed against the rejection of a supplementary drawback claim by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant had initially filed a drawback claim for a certain amount, which was rejected. Subsequently, a supplementary claim was filed after almost three years, seeking the same amount. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules, which allows for supplementary claims within three months of the original claim. The Rule also permits an extension of nine months by the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner under certain conditions.

Upon examination, it was noted that the applicant did not receive any drawback payment initially, as the original claim was entirely rejected. Therefore, the filing of the second claim for the same amount was not considered a supplementary claim as per Rule 15 requirements. Additionally, the supplementary claim was filed almost three years after the rejection of the original claim, far beyond the specified three-month period. The applicant failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for the delay or seek condonation from the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner within the permissible time frame.

The judgment emphasized that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner does not have the authority to condone delays exceeding two years, which was the case with the applicant's supplementary claim. Consequently, the original and appellate authorities were deemed correct in rejecting the claim. The Government concluded that there was no deficiency in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, leading to the rejection of the Revision Application filed by the applicant, M/s. G & A International.