Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for fixation of brand rate under the Drawback Rules was barred by limitation and, if so, to what extent delay could be condoned.
Analysis: The application was filed after export of the goods and the dispute turned on the time limit prescribed under Rule 6/Rule 7 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. The Tribunal noted that the normal period for filing the application was 60/90 days and that Circular No. 82/98-Cus. permitted condonation of delay for one year. On the facts, the adjudicating authority had treated 24-10-2006 as the relevant cut-off by allowing an additional 30 days, but the Tribunal found no cogent basis for condoning that further 30 days. The cut-off date was therefore required to be shifted to 24-11-2006.
Conclusion: The limitation issue was decided against the assessee to the extent that the additional 30 days of condonation was disallowed, and the order was modified accordingly.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the determination on the time bar revised by changing the cut-off date for consideration of the shipping bills.
Ratio Decidendi: Condonation under the applicable drawback circulars cannot be extended beyond the permissible period without a cogent basis, and the relevant cut-off date must strictly reflect the legally allowable period of delay.