Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2015 (9) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1525 - CGOVT - CustomsDuty drawback - brand rate - subsequent exported goods had been notified under list of All Industry Rate - filing of supplementary claim - Whether the supplementary drawback claim filed u/r 15 of the Drawback Rules, 1995 by M/s. Cummins India Ltd. is hit by limitation or not? - Held that: - the relevant date for the purpose of limitation under Rule 15 ibid is the date of settlement and payment of original drawback claims by the proper officer and not the date of Order-in-Original No. 31/2010-11, dated 21-3-2011 as passed by the Commissioner for recovery of excess drawback paid. As the claims were not filed within three months from the respective date of settlement of the original claims, the supplementary claims have rightly been held as time-barred by the original authority in the impugned Orders-in-Original dated 1-6-2011. Whether limitation period for filing supplementary drawback claim under Rule 15 ibid can be relaxed by exercise of authority under Rule 17 ibid? - Held that: - Government holds that the powers given u/r 17 ibid are beyond the scope of powers to be exercised under Section 129DD of the Act. As such mention of Central Government in Rule 17 ibid does not refer to Joint Secretary, Revision Application or empower him on behalf of Central Government for the purpose of Rule 17 ibid. Government observes that the Commissioner (Appeals) exercises quasi-judicial authority u/s 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 being the first level of appeal against orders passed by officers lower in rank than a Commissioner of Customs. It would thus be beyond the scope of the powers conferred by the said Section for the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise authority under a Section or a Rule for which he is not empowered. Hence, Government holds that in allowing relaxation u/r 17 ibid, the Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his statutory jurisdiction. The supplementary drawback claim was clearly time-barred in terms of Rule 15 ibid; and Commissioner (Appeals)’s order is not just and proper in holding that the claim cannot be treated as time-barred in reference to Rule 17 and has erred in directing the lower authority to admit the claim and process it as per law. Revision allowed.
|