9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2040198 dated 4-9-1998, No. 2030787 dated 24-7-1998 and No. 2030789 dated 24-7-1998. In order to process the claims, the Customs Authorities required the exporter to submit certain documents (certificate of non-fulfilment of Modvat credit from central Excise authorities and declaration regarding source of leather used in the export product) within 30 days. The required documents were not produced within the stipulated time. In the absence of the documents, the Customs portion of drawback claim was sanctioned in Shipping Bill dated 4-9-1998 and no amount was sanctioned in the other two Shipping Bills. Subsequently, the party filed supplementary claims in respect of all the three Shipping Bills. After hearing them, the Commissioner rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drawback amount sanctioned Date of payment by bank Date of filing of supplementary claims 01. 2040198/4-9-1998 Rs. 46,221 9-11-1998 21-6-1999 02. 2030787/24-7- 1998 NIL 24-9-1998 13-7-1999 03. 2030789/24-7-1998 NIL 24.9-1998 13-7-1999 It appears from the records that it was only on 9-11-1998 that the appellant came to know from the bank that drawback claim to the extent of only Rs. 46,221/- had been sanctioned in the first Shipping Bill and that the rest of the claim made in that Shipping Bill had not been allowed. The appellant had no means to know the reasons for rejection of part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t date with reference to which this period of limitation is computed depends on whether the rate of drawback is determined /revised under Rule 3/Rule 4 whether the rate of drawback is determined / revised upward under Rule 6/Rule 7 or whether the original drawback claim is settled by the proper officer, as the case may be. In the present case, it is the definite case of the appellant that there was no communication of any determination or revision or settlement to them. This case of the appellant has not been successfully rebutted by the respondent. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the drawback cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 4th column in the above table and found the claim to be time-barred. He did not condone the delay under the 2nd provisio to Rule 15(1). Consequently, all the supplementary claims of the appellant came to be rejected as time-barred. We have to set aside the Commissioner's decision for the reasons which we have already recorded in the case of M/s. Sakthi Footwear. 6. The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is also allowed by way of remand directing the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the supplementary drawback claims of the appellant, to dispose of the said claims on merits after giving the party an effective opportunity of being heard. (Operative part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
