TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be filed within one year from the relevant date, the rebate claim is also required to be filed within one year from the relevant date. When the rebate claims are filed after, stipulated one year as mentioned in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the rebate claims are liable to be rejected on limitation. Though there is specific provision regarding time limit of filing rebate claim, there is no specific provision of filing rebate claim within 1 year from date of payment of duty as, contested by the applicant. Under such Circumstances, Government finds that original authority has rightly rejected this rebate claim which was filed beyond stipulated one year period and is clearly hit by limitation clause. As such it is rightly rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with interest. Subsequently, the applicant filed rebate claim of Rs. Z,07,206( 84,200+1,23,006 on 21.06.2011. The said rebate claim of ₹ 2,07,206/ was rejected by the Original Authority as time barred for the reason that the export took place from 02/03/2010 to10/03/2010, however, the claim was filed on 21/06/2011, after lapse of more than one year 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision applications under section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to see that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in such cases there is no time limit for filing refund application. Even on this ground the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal of the applicants. 5 Personal hearing scheduled on 30.10.2014 was attended by Shri Bharat Bhushan Sharma Manager (Taxation) on behalf of the applicant , who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records/available case files, oral and written submission and perused the Order-in-Original and Order-in-appeal. 7. Government observes-that the applicant initially exported the goods on payment of duty @ 8.24%. It has been pointed out by the department that the duty was payable @ 10.32%. Accordingly, the applicant paid differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are load, leaves India, or There is no ambiguity in provision of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding statutory time limit of one year for filing rebate claims: 8 Government noticed that rebate claim filed after one year being time barred cannot be sanctioned as categorically held in the case laws/judgements cited below : 8.1 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 15.12.2011 in the case of IOC Ltd. Vs. UOI (SCA No. 12074/2011) has held as under: We are unable to uphold the contention that such period of limitation was only procedural requirement and therefore could be extended u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be in a position to ignore the substantive provisions and the time ilmit prescribed therein. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (supra) was rendered in a different factual background. It was a case where the refund clam was filed beyond the period of six months which was the limit prescribed at the relevant time, but within the period of one year. When such refund claim was still pending, law was amended. Section 11B in the amended form provided for extended period of limitation of one year instead of six months which prevailed previously. It was in this background, the Bombay High Court opined that limitation does not extinguish the right to claim refund, but only the remedy thereof, The Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me limit. 8.3 Hon ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of UOI vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company reported in 1996 (84) ELT 401 (SC) that High Court under Writ jurisdiction cannot direct the custom authorities to ignore time limit prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 even though High Court itself may not be bound by the time limit of the said Section. In particular, the Custom authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or cut contrary to Section 27 of Customs Act. The ratio of this Apex Court judgment is squarely applicable to this case, as Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 judgment is squarely applicable to this case, as Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
