TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipping bills. 2. The brief facts are the appellant had filed the application for fixation of Brand Rate for Drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the request was rejected on the ground of limitation as per the order dated 17.09.2022. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order dated 09.01.2024, out of 7(seven) claims, 6(six) claims were rejected on the ground of limitation and only one claim was partially allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in terms of Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules, 2017, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant requested for condonation of delay in filing the application in terms of proviso (ii) read with proviso (iv) of Rule 7 of the Drawback Rules, 2017 and also paid application fee of Rs.2,000/- for each of the applications. Copies of application(s) filed under Rule 7 along with payment of fee of Rs.2,000/- per application are enclosed to appeal-memo. 5. On 05.02.2021 the Appellant wrote a letter to the Customs Department to process pending drawback fixation applications filed under Rule 6 or 7 including 6(six) applications involved in this appeal. There was no response insofar as 6(six) applications are concerned. Again, during periodical follow-up with the Department, the Appellant were given to understand that six applications we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of 2(two) or 3(three) shipping bills in a financial year was due to unavoidable circumstances and is quite explainable. Hence, there has been "sufficient cause" which has been duly explained, though this requirement is not a condition for condonation as clarified in para 4 of Circular No.13/2010-Cus dated 24.06.2010. It is submitted that the Appellant does not gain anything by filing delayed application rather it would be counterproductive. Hence, it was not a deliberate or an intentional delay. The impugned order is therefore untenable. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Ld. Respondent has not appreciated that the Duty drawback is an export incentive scheme and no exporter would gain by delaying the claims or by resorting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he application which was submitted on 16.01.2018 and thereafter on 01.09.2021. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to Rule 7(ii) which provides; 'the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may extend the aforesaid period of three months by a period of three months and that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may further extend the period by a period of six months'. Further, even if the delay is within one year, if proper objections were made, it would have been brought before the Principal Commissioner of Customs for condonation of delay beyond 6(six) months. 11. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the following: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls. The Commissioner has turned down the request for condonation/extension of the delay in filing the said application recording that he is not convinced by the reasons given. We were informed that in respect of the very same assessee/appellant, the first appellate authority has condoned the delay which was turned down by the Joint Commissioner. In our considered view, granting of drawback or industrial brand rate which is a beneficial legislation needs to be considered in a broader perspective rather than a narrow view as done by the lower authorities. The statute mandates that an application can be filed for condoning the delay beyond the period of three months but within 12 months from the date of Let Export Order needs to be read in the....