2011 (7) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es at Surat and Mumbai in respect of their export as per CBEC Circular No.39/1999-Cus, dt.25.06.99 and several such claims were settled. However, in respect of 7 applications for fixation of brand rates, the brand rates were not fixed and the drawback was not sanctioned because the matter went into litigation after issue of CBEC Circular No.39/2001-Cus, dt.06.07.01. After the issue having been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applications filed by the applicant were considered and rejected and the appellants are before us.   2. Shri M.K. Harikumar, Authorised Representative of the appellant submitted that several exporters who are affected by CBEC Circular No.39/2001-Cus, dt.06.07.01, which outlined the detailed procedure for c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellant, is totally wrong.   3. The ld.SDR, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had not produced any evidence before the lower authority that the claim had been submitted earlier and further he also submitted that in absence of legible date of receipt of claim, lower authority cannot be found fault with.   4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides as regards limitation. It is quite clear that while submitting drawback claim after verification to the Jt.Secretary, Drawback, one of the points to be verified was the date of receipt of application and whether it was within time. The original adjudicating authority considered this aspect in respect of one of the claim, wherein, the date of receip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter dt.18.08.00, had sought some reports with reference to the attested copies of Central Excise invoice/ commercial invoice and disclaimer certificate in prescribed format. However, the adjudicating authority does not throw any light whatsoever, as to whether this was communicated to the appellant, their comments obtained or this was replied to after verification etc. The claims have been rejected on the ground that certain original documents are not available and the appellant failed to submit certain documents. For this, the authorized representative submitted that there was a fire accident, which led to destruction of all documents in the year 2005 and according to him, they had submitted all the documents required to the authorities fo....