2009 (4) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Application seeking fixation of brand rate of drawback limitation - delay in setting up of refinery and also confusion regarding law have resulted in a situation where appellants filed shipping bills without a claim for draw back and subsequently applied for conversion the shipping bills as well as brand rates - While application for conversion of shipping bills is pending, request for brand rates has been rejected and Commissioner has refused to condone the delay. - we find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the appellants that under the circumstances the delay should have been condoned. We also notice that there is no discussion about the Tribunal order allowing conversion of shipping bills in the impugned order. - Since the Commissioner has not taken into account the decision of this Tribunal directing the Commissioner of Customs to consider conversion of shipping bills and also finding that order of the Commissioner was premature and actually he should have awaited the final decision on the application for conversion of shipping bills and also taking note of the fact that in the event of Commissioner of Customs Jamnagar allowing the conversion, the conversion would become infructuous because of the Commissioner s impugned order, we remand the matter to Commissioner

Summary

The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, consisting of Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, heard an appeal from the appellant, represented by Shri Vishal Aggarwal, CA, against the respondent, represented by Shri S.R. Prasad, SDR. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products, including furnace oil, faced issues with claiming drawback on physically exported furnace oil due to delays in project implementation. The appellant sought an All Industry Rate of drawback for physical exports of furnace oil, but was advised by customs authorities to apply for a brand rate of drawback. The Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, rejected the appellant's request for conversion of shipping bills, leading to an appeal to the CESTAT, which overturned the Commissioner's decision. The tribunal noted that the delay in setting up the refinery and confusion over applicable law led to the appellant's predicament. Citing a previous tribunal order directing conversion of shipping bills, the tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration post a decision on conversion. The appeal was allowed to proceed early with the consent of both parties, and the tribunal emphasized the need for the Commissioner to await the final decision on the conversion application. The case highlights the importance of condoning delays in such situations and ensuring consistency in administrative decisions.