9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved delay beyond six months period in this case), the exporter has neither applied properly to the designated authority of Central Government as per Board’s Circular No. 12/96-Cus., dated 16-2-1996 (under applicable Rules ibid) nor has even obtained any orders of such condonation. Therefore the involved delay remains as not condoned thus making the granted drawback as erroneous, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company (1996 -TMI - 44281 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that customs authorities who are creature of Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to the boundations of time-limits as provided in the statute, no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and upholds the same, Revision Application is thus rejected being devoid of merits. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals), reasonable period of limitation for Government demand has to be read as 30 years as prescribed under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,71,496/- along with interest on having been aggrieved by these orders of the adjudicating authority, the applicant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who after due consideration of submissions as made therein rejected the same thus upholding the impugned order-in-original as legal and proper. 3. Now being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 3.1 That, the only allegation in the said notice is that the drawback was claimed after the period prescribed in Rule 5 of the said Rules and the ground for condonation of delay in filing the claim was not valid. The said notice does not spell out why the ground for condonation of delay was not valid. The mother of the person, dealing with the matter, was seriously ill for a long time and subsequently died and he was, therefore, on leave qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without getting the sanction order set aside in appeal is, therefore, not legal and proper and the impugned order-in-appeal is liable to be aside on this ground. In this connection reliance is placed on the following CESTAT's Order. (i) WEP Peripherals Ltd. v. CC & CE, Hyderabad, 2007 (80) RLT 530 = 2007 (213) E.LT. 18 (Tribunal). (ii) Doothat Tea Estate Kanoi Plantation (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Shillong, 2001 (135) E.L.T. 386. The above judgments are in respect of demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but Section 28 of the Act being pari materia with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 these judgments will equally be applicable in the applications' (sic) [Applicant's] case. In these judgments, the Hon'ble CESTAT has held that erroneous refund cannot be demanded without challenging refund sanction order in appeal under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To the same effect is the Board's Circular No. 423/56/98-Cx., dated 22-9-1998 which is based on the Law Ministry's advice. Since in the applicants' case the order condoning delay and sanctioning drawback has not simultaneously challenged in appeal, demand under Rule 7 of the said Rules read with Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lastolan Enggs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-III, 2007 (216) E.L.T. 297 (CESTAT-Kol.) (iii) Automotive India (Ralpur) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Raiput, 2006 (77) RLT 140 (CESTAT - Del.) = 2006 (263) E.L.T. 402 (Tribunal). These judgments held that rate of interest prescribed in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 being higher than that prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be levied and Rule 8 to the extent is invalid. Following the ratio of these judgments it is submitted that Rule 7 of the said Rules cannot prescribe time limit for demand higher than that laid down in Section 28 of the Act. (d) The time-limit prescribed in Section 28 of the Act should be considered as reasonable time-limit laid down in Rule 7 of the said Rules. In view of the above also, the said notice has to be treated as time-barred even under Rule 7 of the said Rules. 3.7 That, as submitted supra, Rule 7A of the said Rules empowers the Central Government to relax any provisions of the said Rules. Your Honour is, therefore, competent to regularize the administrative lapse on the part of the Asstt. Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the drawback claim which is admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orily applicable rules can be the Rules which are specifically made in exercise of the powers conferred by applicable Section 74 of the Act ibid. Therefore all cases including this case under revision should and can only be decided within the four corners of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995. No condition from any other section/Rules can be substituted and made applicable in place of any of the provisions of these rules. The Board circular cited by the applicant are of no help to them as the issue is not covered by these circulars. Similarly none of the judgment cited by applicant, relate to drawback claim filed after a period of six months. Further as held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions including below mentioned cases, the simple & plain wording as clarified and elaborated vide C.B.E.C. circulars, would prevail as per applicable statute :- (i) ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] (ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. CC [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)] (iii) CCE, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Ind. [2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.)]. Keeping in view the above legal & proper condition, Government observes that as per applicable Rule 5 of Re-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
