2003 (12) TMI 62 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of applications for refund in the nature of drawback.
2. Delay in filing applications beyond the prescribed period.
3. Condonation of delay under Rule 6 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971.
4. Applicability of Rule 15 for relaxation or exemption from compliance with the Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of applications for refund in the nature of drawback:
The Petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Respondents rejecting their applications claiming refund in the nature of drawback. The Petitioners, engaged in manufacturing computers and peripherals, faced issues in handling export orders due to the lack of experienced personnel and had to dispatch goods in multiple lots under different shipping bills. Consequently, they filed applications for drawback refunds beyond the prescribed period.

2. Delay in filing applications beyond the prescribed period:
The Petitioners admitted that their applications were filed beyond the period of thirty days and even beyond sixty days. The reasons cited for the delay included the voluminous nature of the export orders, lack of experience in handling post-shipment formalities, and the departure of their Senior Export Manager. The applications were filed on various dates, all exceeding the sixty-day limit from the date of export.

3. Condonation of delay under Rule 6 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971:
Rule 6(1)(a) prescribes a period of thirty days from the date of export for filing an application to claim the refund in the nature of drawback, with a possible extension of another thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. However, the Petitioners' applications were filed beyond this sixty-day period. The authorities, therefore, lacked the power to condone the delay beyond sixty days as per Rule 6.

4. Applicability of Rule 15 for relaxation or exemption from compliance with the Rules:
The Petitioners did not initially request the authorities to exercise powers under Rule 15 for relaxation or exemption from compliance with the Rules. Rule 15 allows for relaxation from the provisions of the Rules under specific circumstances. The Petitioners' applications were primarily for condonation of delay under Rule 6, not for relaxation under Rule 15. The Court noted that the Petitioners could still approach the Respondents with a proper application under Rule 15 for consideration.

Conclusion:
The Court held that the authorities acted within their powers in rejecting the applications as they were filed beyond the prescribed period of sixty days. The Petitioners were advised to file a proper application under Rule 15 within four weeks, which the Respondents should dispose of in accordance with the law within three months. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.