TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts as has been gathered on perusal of the impugned order and on the basis of the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is dealing in the business of import and export of readymade garments since 1991. The brief controversy, which has been raised by filing instant writ petition, is that during February and April, 2006, the petitioner firm had exported certain goods via air shipment to Japan & The Netherlands after submitting all the requisite documents with a bonafide intention to receive custom and excise duty drawback facility as per Customs Rules, 1995. 3. Finding some flaw in the said claim, the duty draw back and excise portion of duty draw back was denied on eleven shipping bills. The Assistant Commissioner (drawback) originally conveyed to the petitioner that eleven shipping bills were found to be time barred as they were not submitted within three months from the date of payment of the original drawback. It also expressed that the reason, if any, shown for condonation of delay, had not been found justifiable. As such, an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was prevented by good, sufficient and reasonable causes namely; (i) the bank statement was received late and therefore, the petitioner could not ascertain the amount of duty drawback; (ii) the partner/ other authorized persons were all busy in attending international trade fairs by which they got engaged in not only looking after production but also other matters and therefore, could not follow up with the claim. He contended that since the adjudicating authority has not expressed anything adverse about the claim, therefore, in so far as the merits of the claim is concerned, it is established and once it is established on merits and the claim is proper, then slight delay ought to have been condoned which at one point of time, the Commissioner (Appeals), being an appellate authority, decided in favour of the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnaurthy: (1998) 7 SCC 123; Apangshu Mohan Lodh Vs. State of Tripura: (2004) 1 SCC 119 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others: (1987) 2 SCC 107 and contended that even the Hon'ble Ape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained by the exporter or their authorized person from the counter at the service center. It further goes on to say that the designated bank also credits the drawback amount in the account of the exporter on the next day and informs the exporter by sending a fortnightly statement about the payment of drawback claims to them. Therefore, the onus of ascertaining the status of the drawback claim, whether sanctioned short or under any query/deficiency, so as to avoid any delay in filing the subsequent supplementary drawback claims, solely lies on the exporter himself. The said public notice further expresses that the customs authorities have even gone to the extent of stating that the drawback claims are being processed through the EDI System by the officers of the Drawback Branch on first cum first serve basis and there is no need for filing separate drawback claims. The status of the Shipping Bills and sanction of the drawback claim can be ascertained by the trader from the query counter set up at the Export Service Center. If any query has been raised or deficiency noticed, the same will be shown on the terminal and the printout of the query/deficiency may be obtain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner that they were pursuing with representation/review before the revisional authority and waiting for its result, in as much as counsel submitted that the review application/representation, which was moved by the petitioner, time and again, was ultimately rejected on 26/12/2012 and therefore, they were under bonafide belief that once the action is taken by the revisional authority on the review/representation, then thereafter appropriate remedy could be availed as they were quite confident that the delay ought to have been condoned. However, we are not impressed by the arguments of counsel as even otherwise, it is observed by the revisional authority while rejecting review/representation on 26/12/2013 observes that the representation was moved by the petitioner on 14/02/2011 i.e. after waiting for more than 14 months of the impugned order (dt.1512/2009) having been passed. We have also perused the so-called review/representation dt.14/02/2011 (Ann.9) but not a single word has been stated in the said application by using word "review" or even "representation" and nothing has been pointed out to the revisional authority as to what was mistake or f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondoned. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.B. Ramligam Vs. R.B. Bhuvaneshwari: 2009(2) Scale (SC) 108 has held as under:- "On the question as to whether the prosecution of a Review Application would be a sufficient cause for not filing the special leave petition in time for the purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 we are of the view that there is a dichotomy between the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution (See: Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. Reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 RELIED). Reading the said judgment, it also becomes clear that filing of Review Petition is no impediment to the filing of the special leave petition. Large number of judgments were cited before us by learned Counsel. It is not necessary at this stage to discuss each and every judgment cited before us for the simple reason that Section 5 of the limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of limitation has left the concept ....