COMMISSIONER Vs. SUZLON STRUCTURES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [the Act], the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Rajkot has challenged the order dated 1st December 2009 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad [the Tribunal] in Appeal No. E/793/09 [2010 (253) E.L.T. 93 (Tribunal)], proposing the following questions:

(2.) THE Respondent Company is engaged in the manufacture and export of Tubular Towers for Wind Operated Electricity Generators. The Respondent had filed six applications for fixation of brand rate of duty drawback under Rule 7(1) of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 [the Rules] on account of duty suffered on inputs used for manufacture of goods exported. There was delay in filing some applications and therefore, the Respondent filed an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot, vide Order -in -Original dated 16 -2 -2009 rejected the application of the Respondent for condonation of delay on the ground that the applications were beyond the period of limitation and that the Respondent had failed to prove that it was prevented by sufficient cause from making applications within time.

(3.) MR . K.N. Shastri, learned Standing Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal. Inviting attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it was submitted that the Tribunal after recording a finding to the effect that "we find full justification in the decision taken by the Commissioner in refusal of condonation of delay", was thereafter not justified in taking a lenient view in the matter and directing the Commissioner to condone the delay that was occassioned in filing the application for fixation of brand rate of duty drawback. It was submitted that the Commissioner had found that all the applications for fixation of brand rate of duty drawback by the Respondent during the last two years were invariably delayed with the same set of reasons which cannot be termed as "sufficient cause". The Commissioner also was of the view that if delay was required to be condoned irrespective of sufficient cause, it would mean altering the time -limit of 60 days specified in Rule 7(1) of the Rules to 90 days and therefore, cannot be accepted. Learned Standing Counsel accordingly submitted that the appeal requires consideration and that the question as proposed or as may be deemed fit by the Court may be formulated.