2011 (8) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (Appeals) held that appellant was eligible for the benefit and matter was remanded to the lower authority namely the Assistant Commissioner. However when the applications were taken up for fixation of brand rate, it was found that the applications have been filed beyond 60 days which is the time limit prescribed for submission of application for fixation of brand rate under Drawback Rules. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Commissioner who is the competent authority for condoning delay. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner has rejected all the applications on the ground that the same have been filed late and he has not found any justification for condoning the delay in filing the applications. 2. The learned counsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. The Rule requires that the Commissioner has to be satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Zenith Computers Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2004 (164) ELT 24 (Bom.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court took the view that the rule requires the concerned party to show that the party was prevented from filing the application. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Initially the appellants had made a claim that there was delay in receipt of documents from the Customs Department. When they were required to show evidence for this, they submitted copies of e-mails sent by the person in Mundra to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of the shipping bill is taking two to three months and therefore the exporters are not able to make applications in time. This was the back ground under which a direction was given that the condonation of delay up to 90 days should be liberally granted. The underlying presumption is that the delay has occurred because of delivery of EP-copy. The letter does not help the appellant because in this case there is no evidence to show that EP-copy was received late. Coming to the decision in the case of Rallis India Ltd. cited by the learned counsel, para 4 of the decision reproduces the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner in that case for rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In that paragraph the Commissioner had observed that....