Limitation and drawback rules: bona fide pursuit before the wrong forum may be excluded, but DEPB debit did not support brand rate drawback.

Time bona fide spent pursuing revision before the wrong forum may be excluded in computing limitation where the revision remedy is treated as pari materia with the corresponding limitation provision, so the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. On drawback, brand rate was not admissible where basic customs duty had been discharged through debit of DEPB scrips, because the governing rule and circular were read as permitting consideration only of additional customs duty paid through DEPB for fixation of brand rate. The drawback claim was therefore rejected on merits, and the rejection was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the revision application could be condoned on account of bona fide prosecution of proceedings before the wrong forum; (ii) whether brand rate of drawback was admissible where customs duty was paid through debit of DEPB scrips.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the revision application could be condoned on account of bona fide prosecution of proceedings before the wrong forum.

Analysis: The time spent in pursuing the matter before the Tribunal was treated as liable to exclusion while computing the limitation for revision. The revision remedy under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to be pari materia with the limitation principle applied under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the reasoning based on exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether brand rate of drawback was admissible where customs duty was paid through debit of DEPB scrips.

Analysis: The claim was examined with reference to proviso (ii) to Rule 3 of the Customs & Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 and Circular No. 3/99-Cus. The later circular relied upon by the applicant was held to permit consideration only of additional customs duty paid through DEPB for fixation of brand rate, and not basic customs duty debited through DEPB. The contention that such debit should also qualify for drawback was found untenable.

Conclusion: Brand rate of drawback was not admissible; the issue was decided against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The revision application failed on merits, and the rejection of the drawback claim was sustained after condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: Time bona fide spent in proceedings before a wrong forum may be excluded for computing limitation where the statutory revision remedy is pari materia with the corresponding limitation provision, but drawback cannot be granted for basic customs duty discharged through DEPB debit unless the governing rule or circular expressly permits it.

---