Brand rate fixation rejected for delayed drawback claim; relief lies through Central Government relaxation under the Rules.

Delay in filing a brand rate fixation application under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 justified rejection where the exporter gave an inadequate explanation for the delay. The proper remedy, where compliance with the Rules was prevented for reasons beyond the exporter's control, was to seek relaxation from the Central Government under the rule conferring that power. Appellate interference with the rejection order was therefore not warranted, and the claim for brand rate fixation was not accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of brand rate fixation for delayed application under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 was liable to be interfered with, and whether the appellants should instead seek relaxation from the Central Government.

Analysis: The claim for fixation of brand rate had been rejected on the ground of delay in making the application and inadequate explanation for such delay. Where compliance with the Drawback Rules is prevented for reasons beyond the exporter's control, the Rules themselves empower the Central Government to relax their operation. In these circumstances, the appropriate course was not appellate interference with the rejection order, but recourse to the relaxation mechanism under the Rules.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of brand rate fixation was not accepted, and the appellants were left to seek relaxation from the Central Government under the relevant rule.

---