ASSOCIATED AUTOTEX ANCILLARIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JOINT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 14 HUDCO VISHALA BUILDING B WING 6TH FLOOR BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Order No.332/2005 dated 21.11.2005 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal by taking cognizance of the Board's circular No.41/2005 Cus dated 28.10.2005 issued in this respect and direct the third respondent to condone the 2 days delay in filing with respect to 2 shipping bill Nos.18 dated 2.5.2003 and 46 dated 3.5.2005 and 4 days delay in filing in respect of shipping bill No.1538 dated 3.5.2003.

(2.) THE petitioner company imported the raw materials "celcon" used in the manufacture of bobbins under DEPB scheme vide bill of entry No.4796260 dated 8.4.2003 and paid basic customs duty, additional customs duty and special additional duty by way of debiting the DEPB licence vide shipping bill bearing Nos.18 dated 2.5.2003, 46 dated 3.5.2003, 1538 dated 3.5.2003 and 226 dated 14.5.2003. THE petitioner company applied for fixing of brand rates for the bobbin holders under Rule 6 of the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. THE second respondent rejected the application stating that three out of four shipping bills were time barred and for the shipping bill that was presented in time, rule 6 cannot be applied since the import duty was paid not in cash but by debiting the DEPB. THE petitioner was further directed to approach the Government to get the delay condoned if they are so advised. Not satisfied with the order of the second respondent " Deputy Commissioner of Customs, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal was rejected by order in appeal No.3 of 2005 Customs dated 5.5.2005. That order was taken in revision by the petitioner before the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which also confirmed the order of the authorities below by its proceedings dated 17.3.2005. THE correctness of the same is now put in issue in this writ petition.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in respect of three bill of entries, the claim has been made by the petitioner beyond the period prescribed under the statute. Even the suggestion made by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Customs directing the petitioner to approach the Government, which is the competent authority to condone the delay, has not been accepted by the petitioner or proceeded with to approach the Government for condoning the delay. It is well settled that the authorities under the Act are bound by the statutory provisions and they cannot have any power to extend the period of limitation prescribed under the statute. However, Rule 6 specifically empowers the Central Government, which is also indicated by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Customs in his order. In spite of such indication, the petitioner has not availed that opportunity. Hence, the order in respect of the first three bill of entries, which have been filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 6 of Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, as belated, cannot be held to be illegal.