Tribunal grants appeal, remands for delay consideration. Appellant's challenge dismissed. Upheld decision aligns with Rule 7.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and remanding the matter to consider the application by condoning the delay. The appellant's challenge was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was upheld as legally sound, aligning with the need for a liberal approach in cases of delayed applications for brand rate fixation under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.

---

---

Issues:
- Challenge to order under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding condonation of delay in filing application for fixation of brand rate of drawback under Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995.

Analysis:
1. The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenged the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing applications for brand rate of duty drawback. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing and exporting Tubular Towers, filed applications for brand rate fixation, some delayed. The Commissioner rejected the application for condonation of delay due to being beyond the limitation period and lack of sufficient cause.

2. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order, and remanded the matter to consider the application by condoning the delay. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal unjustifiably directed condonation despite the repeated delayed applications without sufficient cause, potentially altering the time-limit specified in Rule 7 of the Rules.

3. The respondent contended that the delay was due to the belief that EP copies of shipping bills were required, which was not specified in the Rules. Referring to relevant circulars, the respondent argued for a lenient view, citing financial difficulties and export challenges. The Tribunal considered these aspects, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in condoning the delay beyond the usual 60-day period.

4. The circular dated 9th December 2003 highlighted the Ministry's facilitative approach towards exporters facing delays in obtaining EP copies of shipping bills. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was based on these considerations, finding no legal error or arbitrariness. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion was deemed reasonable and not warranting interference.

5. The Commissioner's rejection based on the absence of specific rules mandating EP copies submission was deemed incorrect. The circulars indicated a requirement for a liberal approach in condoning delays due to exporter challenges. The Tribunal's decision aligned with these considerations and was upheld as legally sound, not giving rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

---