Appellant's 2012 application for special drawback rate fixation rejected for missing mandatory time-limit under Rule 6(1)(a)

CESTAT Kolkata upheld rejection of appellant's application for fixation of special drawback rate under Rule 6(1)(a) of Drawback Rules, 1995. Appellant exported six consignments in 2006 claiming drawback at brand-rate but filed application for special rate fixation only in 2012 via letter dated 28.05.2012. Appellant failed to produce evidence of filing application within mandatory time-limit prescribed under Rule 6(1)(a) or within condonable period under proviso. CESTAT held time-limit compliance is mandatory condition and adjudicating authority correctly rejected application. Appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
- Application for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995.
- Rejection of the application by the Ld. Commissioner.
- Appeal against the rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Application for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995.

The Appellant, a manufacturer-exporter of PVC-coated polyester fabric hose, exported six consignments of their product under claim of drawback at brand rate. Dissatisfied with the existing rate, they applied for fixation of special rate of drawback under Rule 6(1)(a). However, the application was not filed within the prescribed time-limit of sixty days from the relevant date. The Appellant claimed to have filed the application in the Divisional Office, but failed to provide evidence of timely submission. The Rule mandates filing with the Commissioner of Central Excise within the stipulated period, which was not adhered to by the Appellant.

Issue 2: Rejection of the application by the Ld. Commissioner.

A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant proposing rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of drawback due to non-fulfillment of basic requirements. The Ld. Commissioner, in the Order-in-Original, rejected all applications of the assessee citing failure to meet essential conditions. The Appellant argued that the delay in filing the application should have been condoned as a procedural lapse, but the Ld. Commissioner upheld the rejection based on non-compliance with the prescribed time-limit.

Issue 3: Appeal against the rejection of the request for fixation of special rate of brand-rate.

The Appellant contended that they submitted the applications within the stipulated time in the Divisional Office but later realized the correct filing procedure. They argued that the delay should have been condoned, emphasizing the absence of a time limitation in the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue highlighted the specific time-limit under Rule 6(1)(a) and the requirement to apply before the Commissioner within sixty days. The Appellant's failure to meet this deadline led to the rejection of their appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order rejecting the application for fixation of special rate of drawback due to the Appellant's failure to adhere to the prescribed time-limit under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995. The Tribunal found that the mandatory conditions were not fulfilled, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

---