Brand rate drawback delay condonation requires claim-wise consideration and decision by the competent authority under the amended scheme.

Under the amended drawback scheme, delay condonation in brand rate drawback claims must be assessed on a facilitative, claim-specific basis rather than through a rigid blanket refusal. A non-speaking order that does not consider each claim on its own merits, does not give an effective opportunity to meet the objections, and ignores the statutory allocation of condonation powers between the lower authority and the Commissioner is unsustainable. The proper course is to segregate requests by the authority competent to decide the length of delay and have them reconsidered in accordance with law by the appropriate authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to condone delay in filing brand rate drawback claims was sustainable; (ii) whether the requests for condonation had to be segregated according to the respective jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and remitted for fresh decision.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to condone delay in filing brand rate drawback claims was sustainable.

Analysis: The drawback framework was liberalised by the 2010 amendments and the accompanying circulars, which shifted the emphasis away from a rigid requirement of showing sufficient cause and towards a more facilitative procedure for exporters. The rejection order was found to have applied a rigid approach inconsistent with the statutory reimbursement mechanism and failed to consider the individual claims on their own merits. The refusal also did not disclose adequate, claim-specific reasons and was passed without giving the appellant an effective opportunity to meet the grounds for rejection.

Conclusion: The blanket refusal to condone delay was unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the requests for condonation had to be segregated according to the respective jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: The amended scheme divided the power to condone delay between the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner depending on the extent of delay. The proper course was therefore to separate the applications according to the competent authority and to restore those falling within the lower authority's competence for decision in accordance with law. This preserved the demarcated jurisdiction under the rules and ensured that each claim was considered from inception by the proper authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for segregation of the requests and fresh action by the competent authorities.

Final Conclusion: The impugned action could not stand in its present form, and the exporter obtained a substantive reopening of the condonation requests before the proper authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawback scheme vests condonation power in different authorities according to the length of delay, a non-speaking or rigid refusal of delay condonation without claim-wise consideration and without respecting the statutory allocation of authority is unsustainable and the applications must be reconsidered by the competent authority.

---