TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter a period of 4 years - applicant failed to exercise his legal and proper right and their plea to re-open their drawback claims for the purpose of fixation of Brand Rates is not admissible and orders of the original adjudicating authority under reference are upheld. After due consideration of all the facts on record including the above said original rejection letter dated 15-12-2003 thereby acknowledging, considering in detail and then finally rejecting the impugned claims for the reasons stated therein is of the considered opinion that such communicated decision may not be in the form of a formal detailed adjudication order, but is very much covered within the statutory provisions of wordings of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... days of grace period under normal scheme. 2.1 The applicant requested the Commissionerate to take up the matter with the Board that whether 21 rejected cases can be reopened after 4 years for consideration on merits. The applicant also requested to give cause of rejection to know facts of the rejection by the Board and to convey to Board whether applications submitted on time with Divisional Excise Office but subsequently after 90 days in BRU Commissionerate Office will be treated as time-barred or not. The Board issued the instructions/directions vide their D.O.F. No. 609/342/2006, dated 5-3-2007 to allow drawback on merits and also conveyed that submission of application by the applicant is not time-barred. The department reopened 11 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of 11 rejected cases and sanctioned without appeal process. The Board issued the instructions/directions vide their DOF No. 609/342/2006, dated 5-3-2007 to allow drawback on merits stating that the applications submitted by the applicant are not time-barred. How a department can have 2 different views when the issue was common in all 21 cases? 4.3 The department themselves have verified and sanctioned all the cases more than 500 till the rejection of these 10 cases those were also prepared in the same practice of writing case number instead Bill of Entry in DBK II/IIA. The department know the reason of not tallying BOE number with the numbers appearing in DBK II/IIA statements due to mention of case number written on the BOE by the Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to tally with DBKII/IIA statement with case number. The applicant has submitted the statement, information and clarification and got it physically verified for each and every entry. The learned Additional Commissioner of Central Excise had already considered for reopening of all 10 cases provided the details for which the cases were rejected is provided within 30 days that had been done on 19-11-2008. 4.7 The Board have issued and laid guidelines for field formations with decentralization under Circular No. 14/2003, dated 6-3-2003 about the detailed procedure under which the Central Excise Commissionerate have to sanction the Brand Rate of Drawback Fixation. The intention of the Board was to simplify the procedure of Fixation of Drawback ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Rules, 1995, as filed during the year 2003-04 were rejected by the then Jurisdictional Authorities and relevant communication in the form of rejection letters were issued. The final concluding line of such communication/letters were Please take a note that the said claim is rejected for the above stated reason. 8. Government further notes that it was during the year 2008-09 that the applicant requested and the department took up the issue of re-open and re consideration of such rejected claims for fixation of Brand Rate. Relevant show cause notices were issued and after providing due opportunity to the applicant, the case matter was adjudicated with the conclusion that the applicant herein should have filed the relevant and due appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is settled principle that ignorance of law is no legal excuse. 11. For consideration of such matter after a gap of 4 years. Government is of the opinion that when the delay is within the condonable limit laid down by the statute, the discretion vested in the authority to condone such delay is to be exercised following the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court [1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.)] but when there is no such condonable limit and the claim is filed beyond the time period prescribed by the statute, then there is no discretion to any authority to extend the time limit. Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401(S.C.) that High Court under writ jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
