2017 (11) TMI 1738 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeal) has correctly observed that the applicant should have filed the rebate claim in this case on or before 1-11-2012 and because the rebate claim has been filed actually on 5-4-2013 it is time-barred in the light of Section 11B of the Act. Since the Rebate claim in this case has been filed undoubtedly beyond one year from the date of export it is hit by time limitation and it cannot be relaxed by the Government under Section 11B as there is no legal provision for doing so. The Revision Application filed by the M/s. Svarn Telecom Ltd. is rejected.

Issues:
1. Claim for rebate of duty on export of prefabricated telecom shelter and accessories.
2. Rejection of rebate claim by Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Interpretation of relevant dates for filing rebate claim.
4. Legal validity of the rebate claim filed beyond the time limit.
5. Consideration of export date for computing limitation period.
6. Compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a Revision Application against the rejection of their rebate claim amounting to &8377; 2,14,146 for the export of prefabricated telecom shelter and accessories. The claim was denied by the Deputy Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the rebate claim citing non-compliance with the time limit for filing refund/rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed this decision, leading to the filing of the Revision Application by the applicant.

3. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of relevant dates for filing the rebate claim. The Customs officer's endorsement indicated that the goods were exported on 2-11-2011. The Commissioner (Appeal) correctly noted that the rebate claim should have been filed by 1-11-2012, as per Section 11B. However, the applicant argued that the export date should be considered as 11-2-2013 based on subsequent permissions, which was deemed legally untenable.

4. Despite the applicant's claim of exporting the goods within six months from factory clearance, the rebate claim was time-barred as it was filed on 5-4-2013, well beyond the one-year limitation period. The absence of evidence supporting the delay in filing further weakened the applicant's case.

5. The contention that different dates should be considered for export and limitation period calculations was dismissed as self-contradictory and legally unfounded. The absence of the original ARE-I until 11-2-2013 was not substantiated with evidence, and even if true, did not justify the delayed filing of the rebate claim.

6. Ultimately, the Revision Application was rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment highlighted the importance of strict adherence to statutory time limits for filing rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, emphasizing the legal constraints governing such claims.

← Previous Next →