Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Amber Distilleries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 11 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPLICATION No. C/COD/92106/16-Mum APPEAL Nos. C/85129/16-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. JCH-43/DBK/CCE/TH-I/20-51/2012 dated 30.7.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Amber Distilleries Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Respondent Appearance: Ms. Aarti Sehgal, Advocate, for appellant Shri C. Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 11.4.2016 Date of Decision: 11.4.2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
This application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before this Bench. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we condone the delay and take up the appeal for disposal as the issue lies in a narrow compass.
2. Heard both sides on merits.
3. On perusal of records, we find that the appellant has filed this appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner not condoning the delay in respect of fixation of brand rate. It is seen that an application for fixation of brand rate under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 needs to be filed within a period of three months from the date of export. The appellant herein has filed this application beyond the period of three months but before the expiry of 12 months from the date of Let Export Order made in the shipping bills. 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 correct perspective in line with beneficial legislation and delay, if any, needs to be condoned. This is the view expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Rallis India Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal reported in 2006 (6) TMI 280-CESTAT, New Delhi [2006 (202) ELT 845 (Tri.-Del.)]. In our considered view, the ratio will be squarely applicable in this case, accordingly we set aside the order dated 2.4.2014 and remit the matter back to the Commissioner with direction to condone the delay by taking a liberal approach and decide the application for fixation of brand rate of drawback in accordance with the Drawback Rules.
4. The appeal is disposed of as indicated herein above.
(Pronounced in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) tvu 1 3