TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commissioner of Customs for a further period of nine months on being satisfied that the exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing his supplementary claim within the aforesaid period of three months. In the instant case the applicant has not received any drawback claim and instead their original drawback claim was entirely rejected as mentioned in Commissioner (Appeals)’s order. In fact it appears that the applicant has filed the drawback claim for the second time after rejection of the earlier claim rejection of the earlier claim as the second claim is also for the same amount of ₹ 1,64,740/-. Therefore, on the face of it, it is not even a supplementary claim. Thus, the primary condition for filing the Supplement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back Rules, 1995. The applicant s appeal against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner was also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide above referred order, dated 23-9-2015. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the Revision application without specifying any relief in the application. 3. A personal hearing was fixed on 24-11-2017 and Shri Om Narayan, Marketing Executive of the applicant, appeared in the above case for the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision. From the respondent s side a letter, dated 22-11-2017 was received from the Assistant Commissioner (DBK) saying that the claim of the applicant is time barred and order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legally correct and proper. 4. On examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (DBK) on 2-12-2010, the applicant s Supplementary claim was filed on 23-9-2013 i.e. after 2 years 9 months and 22 days from the date of initial rejection. Thus it has been filed much beyond the specified period of three months. The applicant has also not made out a case that the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was approached to condone the delay beyond three months. Above all, irrespective of the fact whether they requested the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner or not, the delay involved in filing their Supplementary claim is more than two years for which even the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner is not competent authority to condone. Therefore, the Government finds that the original authority and appellate authority have correctly rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
