9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.08.2006. (v) 5351525 dated 13.12.2006 and (vi) 5353545 dated 21.12.2006 under claim of drawback at brand rate. Since the Appellant was not satisfied with the existing rate of drawback for the subject export items determined by the Government under Rule 3 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Drawback Rules, 1995 ), the Appellant claimed that they have applied for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules 1995. 2. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant proposing to reject the request of the appellant for fixation of special rate of drawback on the following grounds: (i) No evidence of receipt of the application in the Divisional of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only a procedural lapse. Further, they submit that there is no limitation of time provided anywhere in the Customs Act, 1962 in filing the claim of drawback. 3.1. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order, rejecting their application for fixation of special rate of brand-rate. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue submits that Rule 6(1)(a) prescribes a specific time-limit of sixty days from the relevant date, for filing the application for fixation of special rate of drawback. He submits that an assessee has to apply before the Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the Manufacturing Unit within sixty days from the relevant date. He also pointed out that the Ld. Commissioner can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be transferred to the Headquarters Unit by the Divisional Office after verifying the data by the Range Office. However, we observe that 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. 6.2. We observed that Rule 6(1)(a) provides for fixation of special rate of brand-rate when an assessee is not satisfied with the brand-rate fixed under Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules, 1995. For the sake of ready reference, the said rule is reproduced below: RULE 6. Cases where amount or rate of drawback has not been determined.- (1) [(a) Where no amount or rate of drawback has been determined in respect of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). During the time of hearing also, the Appellant was asked to produce evidence if any available with them to substantiate the claim that they have filed all the three copies of the applications in the Divisional Office within the stipulated time along with the acknowledgement for receipt of the same in the Divisional office. However, the Appellant could not produce any such evidence that the claims were submitted in the Divisional Office within the stipulated time limit. We observe that the adjudicating authority al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.1. It has been further seen that the assessee at no course of time has submitted any application for condonation of delay, giving reasons for the same. Limitations in the instant case has been prescribed in order to facilitate faster delivery of incentives for export and also enable the department to carry out any investigation it deems fit before considering a case. In the event of any delay provision for condonation of delay has been provided in the event of the notice submitting an application before the competent authority giving reasons of delay which was beyond the control of the beneficiary. 7.2. In view of the above discussion, it appears that the said notice did not fulfil the basic requirement i.e., the submission of the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
