2024 (8) TMI 913 - AT - Customs

Rejection of request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate - applications of the assessee rejected on the grounds of non-fulfilment of basic requirements - time limitation - HELD THAT - The Appellant has exported 6 consignments vide shipping bills dated 30.01.2006, 05.05.2006, 06.05.2006, 03.08.2006, 13.12.2006 and 21.12.2006 under the claim of drawback at brand-rate. Since the Appellant was not satisfied with the existing rate of drawback, they claimed to have filed an application for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995. The appellant could not produce any evidence to the effect that they had filed application with the Commissioner of Central Excise within the time-limit stipulated in Rule 6(1)(a) for fixation of special rate - the Appellant could not produce any evidence to the effect that they have filed all the three copies of the applications in the Divisional Office within the stipulated time-limit as claimed by them. It is observed that all the six consignments of exports were made in the year 2006. However, the application for fixation of drawback was filed before the proper authority only in 2012 vide letter dated 28.05.2012. There is no evidence available on record to substantiate the claim of the Appellant that they have filed the applications in the Divisional Office within the time-limit prescribed under Rule 6(1)(a). The timelimit prescribed under Rule 6(1)(a) is a mandatory condition to be fulfilled for consideration of the application for fixation of special rate of drawback. Since the Appellant has not filed the application within the mandatory time-limit stipulated in Rule 6(1)(a) or within the condonable period provided in the proviso to Rule 6(1)(a), we hold that the Appellant has not filed the application for fixation of special rate of drawback within the time-limit as stipulated in Rule 6(1)(a). The ld. adjudicating authority has rightly rejected their application for fixation of special rate of drawback vide the impugned order. The impugned order upheld - the appeal filed by the Appellant dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995.
- Rejection of the application by the Ld. Commissioner.
- Appeal against the rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995.

The Appellant, a manufacturer-exporter of PVC-coated polyester fabric hose, exported six consignments of their product under claim of drawback at brand rate. Dissatisfied with the existing rate, they applied for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a). However, the application was not filed within the prescribed time-limit of sixty days from the relevant date. The Appellant claimed to have filed the application in the Divisional Office, but failed to provide evidence of timely submission. The Rule mandates filing with the Commissioner of Central Excise within the stipulated period, which was not adhered to by the Appellant.

Issue 2: Rejection of the application by the Ld. Commissioner.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant proposing rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of drawback due to non-fulfillment of basic requirements. The Ld. Commissioner, in the Order-in-Original, rejected all applications of the assessee citing failure to meet essential conditions. The Appellant argued that the delay in filing the application should have been condoned as a procedural lapse, but the Ld. Commissioner upheld the rejection based on non-compliance with the prescribed time-limit.

Issue 3: Appeal against the rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate.

The Appellant contended that they submitted the applications within the stipulated time in the Divisional Office but later realized the correct filing procedure. They argued that the delay should have been condoned, emphasizing the absence of a time limitation in the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue highlighted the specific time-limit under Rule 6(1)(a) and the requirement to apply before the Commissioner within sixty days. The Appellant's failure to meet this deadline led to the rejection of their appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the application for fixation of special rate of drawback due to the Appellant's failure to adhere to the prescribed time-limit under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995. The Tribunal found that the mandatory conditions were not fulfilled, leading to the rejection of the appeal.