TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t payments for the export were being made, according to petitioners, through a letter of credit. Same were being realised from an Escrow account maintained by M/s J.V. Belcom with the City Bank, Bombay. The petitioner's case is that in order to avail the benefits of the Duty Exemption Scheme, the petitioner through their letter dated 27-4-1992 applied for an Advance Licence under token No. 21 with the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports popularly known as of Director General of Foreign Trade for the balance of 413 numbers of printers to be exported and the C.I.F. value thereof has been mentioned as Rs. 20,12,334.00. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's application was rejected vide order dated 6-7-1992, as communicated by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and it, vide order/endorsement dated 6-7-1992 was rejected on the ground that the value addition offered for R.P.A. exports was very low. The petitioner further alleges that the petitioner was advised to file a fresh application for advance loan by indicating the value addition norm to 223% as against 108% and he filed a revised application vide letter dated 9-10-1992 wherein the C.I.F. imports were shown a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had been served on the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Government of India namely Shri M.V. Vedhachala has supplied to this court an electrostat copy of that affidavit. 4. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that, under proviso to Rule 6, limitation could be extended for thirty days more beyond what is prescribed. It has been further stated as under :- "It is further submitted that the petitioner has no right under Rule 15 of the Drawback Rules to seek for waiver of compliance with the requirement of the Rule 6." The further objection of the respondent is that, "Since mid eighties, this Ministry has been consistently following the policy of not invoking the general powers of relaxation under Rule of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971, in cases where brand rate applications have been filed after expiry of 60 days (normal time limit of 30 days and grace period of further 30 days) from the date of export. In view of such a policy decision, the request for special dispensation in the matter of considering the petitioner's request for fixation of brand rate of Drawback could not be considered." 5. I have heard the learned counsels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at period could not be extended beyond 60 days' and therefore, power under the Rules cannot be exercised as well. 8. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties. 9. Rule 6 sub-rule (1) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 reads as under :- "6. Cases where amount or rate of drawback has not been determined. - (1) (a) where no amount or rate of drawback has been determined in respect of any goods, any manufacturer or exporter of such goods may, within thirty days from the date of export of such goods apply in writing to the Central Government for the determination of the amount or rate of drawback therefor, stating all relevant facts including the proportion in which the materials or components are used in the production or manufacture of goods and the duties paid on such materials or components : Provided that the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that the manufacturer or exporter was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application (within the aforesaid time), allow such manufacturer or exporter to file such application within a further period of thirty days. (b) On receipt of an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order exempting the party or exporter from the operation and clutches of the rule concerned and it has been given power to allow the benefit of drawback in respect of goods. But if the aforesaid conditions are not established to the satisfaction of the Central Government, then the Government is not bound in that case to grant exemption under Rule 15 and to allow drawback. When the power is given to do a certain thing and benefit flows on power being exercised in favour of some party, then that party has got a right to claim that benefit and to claim exercising of that power by that authority. No doubt, it is a right vested in the party under Rule 15 to approach the authority and seek the exemption as referred to and seek for grant of drawback thereunder. That to claim exercise of that power of, and, by the Central Government to consider his case accordingly under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1971, is a right of an exporter in such cases where the conditions to be satisfied under Rule 15 are shown and established to be existing to seek the order granting that relief. It is not open to the Government to say that we have taken a policy decision as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
