Court grants petition, orders timely hearing, sets 3-month deadline for decision. Relief granted, order quashed.

The court allowed the petition, directing the competent authority to hear and decide the request for condonation of delay after granting a personal hearing. The court emphasized timely disposal of the application, setting a deadline of three months from the date of receipt of the court's order. Ultimately, the court granted the relief sought by the petitioners, quashing the impugned order and instructing reconsideration of the application with a hearing and a speaking order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing application for fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought condonation of delay in filing an application for the fixation of Brand Rate of duty drawback. They argued that the competent authority, respondent no. 2, had the power to condone the delay. However, the impugned order was passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, causing injustice. The petitioners requested the court to quash the order and direct the competent authority to reconsider their application after providing a hearing and passing a speaking order.

The Central Government Standing Counsel representing the respondents stated that if directed by the court, the competent authority would hear the petitioners' application for condonation of delay afresh and make appropriate decisions. The court, in response, allowed the petition and directed the competent authority to hear and decide the request for condonation of delay after granting a personal hearing. The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of the application, setting a deadline of three months from the date of receipt of the court's order.

Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition accordingly, granting the relief sought by the petitioners.

---