2017 (12) TMI 1671 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of time bar - export of goods vide ARE-1 s - the entire Revision Application is based on the premise that the Department did not return the Rebate Claim or issued any deficiency memo to the respondent and therefore the resubmission of Rebate Claim on 11-10-2013 must be considered as a fresh filing of Rebate Claim by which the period of rebate claim was already over - Held that - The Government does not agree with the applicant s view as it is quite evident from the above facts that withdrawal of the claim took place with the discussion direction approval knowledge or consent with the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a Central Excise Division and after having accepted this fact a technical stand of no communication from the Department cannot be resorted to. A verbal communication from a public authority like Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of a division with regards to withdrawal of rebate claim is as good as written communication and if a person from the public has acted as per such communication it is bound to be regarded at the behest of the Department. Such fair dealing should also be maintained for the sake of administrative decency and morality. Government is of the clear view that the applicant does not have any basis to discard the fact of original filing of Rebate Claim on 30-9-2013 and it fully agrees with the Commissioner (Appeals) that resubmission of the claim on 11-10-2013 is in continuation of the original Rebate Claim only and hence the rebate claims filed by the respondent are not time barred - revision application rejected.

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection based on time-barred submission.
2. Dispute over the continuity of the original rebate claim.
3. Verbal discussion leading to withdrawal of rebate claim.
4. Consideration of resubmitted claim as part of the original claim.
5. Legal interpretation of communication with Central Excise officers.
6. Application of case laws to support the decision.

Issue 1: Rebate claim rejection based on time-barred submission
The case involved a rebate claim filed by the applicant, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as time-barred. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to a revision application by the applicant challenging the order.

Issue 2: Dispute over the continuity of the original rebate claim
The main contention in the case was whether the resubmission of the rebate claim on 11th October 2013 was a continuation of the original claim filed on 26th September 2013. The applicant argued that the resubmission was not in continuation, while the respondent claimed it was part of the original claim.

Issue 3: Verbal discussion leading to withdrawal of rebate claim
The withdrawal of the rebate claim by the party was done after a verbal discussion with departmental officers due to a mismatch between documents. The applicant argued that the withdrawal was on their own accord, while the respondent stated it was based on discussion and direction from the Department.

Issue 4: Consideration of resubmitted claim as part of the original claim
The Government observed that the resubmitted claim should be considered as part of the original claim, as it was done based on discussion and direction from Central Excise officers. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that the resubmission was in continuation of the original claim.

Issue 5: Legal interpretation of communication with Central Excise officers
The Government emphasized that verbal communication with Central Excise officers regarding the withdrawal of the claim should be considered as official communication. It was stated that such communication, even if verbal, should be regarded as being at the behest of the Department.

Issue 6: Application of case laws to support the decision
The Commissioner (Appeals) and the respondent relied on various case laws to support their arguments, demonstrating that the resubmitted claim should be considered as part of the original claim. The Government, in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals), rejected the revision application based on the facts and legal interpretations presented in the case and the supporting case laws.

← Previous Next →