9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities and giving an opportunity to the appellant to present their case, if the authorities still find that the drawback claims are not admissible or there are certain omissions - Thus, the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of all the issues except limitation - E/899-905/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2011 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Hon ble Member (Judicial) Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Hon ble Member (Technical) Shri M.K. Harikumar, Export Manager for Assessee. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR for the Revenue. Per: MR. B.S.V. Murthy: The appellant company was engaged in manufacture and export of Synthetic Fabrics during the period of dispute between the period 1998 to 2001 and the appellant company had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s limitation, the original adjudicating authority took a view that in the absence of legible date of receipt on the plain paper, the fact that the Jt.Commissioner of Customs, Surat-I, had forwarded the drawback claim vide his letter dt.18.8.2000, would lead to the conclusion that drawback claim was received late and therefore he held that it was time barred. Further, the Commissioner, in his order has not considered this issue at all. The authorized representative submitted a copy of note sheet of the Divisional office relating to one claim, according to which, the appellant had submitted drawback claim dt.27.07.99 which is within time. He submits that all the claims were submitted in time and the view taken by the authority that the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one file noting with reference to one claim, which clearly shows that the claim was in time. In any case, in the verification report, this is one of the points which should have been covered and reported upon and since the officer during the relevant time failed to comment on this aspect, the obvious conclusion and decision has to be in favour of the appellant. Therefore, we hold that the claims cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. 5. As regards merit, it was the submission of the authorized representative that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim has to be settled. We are unable to accept this point also. This is in view of the fact that in Para 2 of the order of original adjudicating authority, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999, which was to be the basis for considering the drawback claim. It is also not clear as to whether the lower authorities were considering the drawback claim in terms of circular of 1999 or 2001 or 2003. We consider that the original adjudicating authority should have considered the verification report and also the fact that there was a fire accident in the appellant s premises subsequently and the circular which was to be the basis for considering the drawback claim, before reaching the conclusion that the appellants are not eligible for drawback. 6. The authorized representative of the appellant expressed his frustration and submitted that it is his hope that before his death, this issue gets finalized and the appellant would get s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
