2015 (8) TMI 1225 - HC - Customs

Court quashes Revisional order, remands case for fresh consideration. No opinion on merits or power to relax.

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court quashed the Revisional order dated 18th December 2012 and remanded the case to the Central Government for fresh consideration. The Court did not ... Filling of supplementary claim – Duty Drawback – Petitioners filed supplementary claim by applications under Rule 15 claiming amount – Said claim was rejected as time barred and also on ground that Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner did not cover drawback claims pertaining to shipping bill covered in supplementary claim – Revision was filed against said order of commissioner – Revisional Authority upheld order of commissioner holding that supplementary claims were barred by limitation – Held that:- The contention was that, if Rule 15(1) was applicable Rule and that provided time limit, could time limit have been relaxed by Government in exercise of its power to relax conferred by Rule 17 of Drawback Rules – It was necessary for the Joint Secretary to have rendered a finding as to whether the power to relax under Rule 17 has been invoked and if invoked before him, could the power be exercised at the stage at which the matter is brought before him. Once the Commissioner has held that Rule 17 enables the consideration of the supplementary claim on merits, then, the above exercise in its entirety was necessary. It was incumbent upon the Revisional Authority to render complete findings and conclusion and not leave the matter half way and by some cryptic observation and reasoning. Thus, Revisional order passed by Department of Revenue quashed and set aside – Merely because such stand was taken by Petitioners, Revisional Authority should not once again render same findings but deal with all these issues and contentions based thereon – Authority to decide whether order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and specifically referring to Rule 17 in above background, was legal or proper – Petition disposed of. Issues Involved1. Validity and legality of the order dated 17th December 2012 passed by the Revisional Authority.2. Whether the supplementary claims for drawback were barred by limitation.3. Whether the Central Government could exercise its power to relax the time limit under Rule 17 of the Drawback Rules.Detailed Analysis1. Validity and Legality of the Order Dated 17th December 2012:The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 17th December 2012. The Court clarifies that it has not issued any writ in terms of prayer clause (b) and confines its order to the validity and legality of the Revisional Authority's order. The Revisional Authority had remanded the case for reconsideration of claims under Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules, and the Petitioners filed supplementary claims which were rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.2. Whether the Supplementary Claims for Drawback Were Barred by Limitation:The Petitioners argued that the Revisional Authority erred in holding that the supplementary claims were barred by limitation. They contended that even if Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules contains a period of limitation, the delay could be condoned by the Central Government under Rule 17, which allows for relaxation of provisions if the exporter failed to comply due to reasons beyond their control. The Revisional Authority, however, concluded that the claims were time-barred and that no further extension could be granted once the period prescribed in the Rules had expired.3. Whether the Central Government Could Exercise Its Power to Relax the Time Limit Under Rule 17 of the Drawback Rules:The Court noted that the essential contention raised before the Revisional Authority was not adequately addressed. The Petitioners argued that the Central Government could have relaxed the time limit under Rule 17, which allows for relaxation if the exporter failed to comply with provisions due to reasons beyond their control. The Revisional Authority failed to consider whether the power to relax could be invoked during the Revisional Proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Revisional Authority should have rendered complete findings and conclusions on this issue.ConclusionThe Court quashed and set aside the Revisional order dated 18th December 2012 and restored the Revision Application to the Central Government for fresh consideration. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the supplementary claim or the exercise of the power to relax under Rule 17. The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the matter entirely and completely, considering all contentions and issues raised. The Court expects the Revisional Authority to dispose of the revision application within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.