TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d within one year from the relevant date, the rebate claim is also required to be filed within one year from the relevant elate. There is no ambiguity in 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 and the relevant date for this purpose. - rebate claim filed after one year being time barred cannot be sanctioned. 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 Bing rebate claim, there is no specific provision of filing rebate claim within 1 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice dated 22.01.2010 has been issued to the taxpayer to show cause as to why a part of their claim for ₹ 28,89,150/- should not be rejected as time barred in terms of Section 119 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.3 After due process of taw, the lower adjudicating authority sanctioned an amount of ₹ 17,92,200/ and rejected a part of claim of ₹ 28,89,150/- as time barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004. 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rejecting the appeal of the applicants. 5. Personal hearing in this case held on 21.03.14 at Chennai and again on 30.10.2004 at New Delhi. The hearing was attended by Shri B.C. Dutta, Sr. General Manager, Taxation, on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. The applicant further vide their written submission dated 05.11.2014 mainly reiterated contents of impugned orders. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records/available in case files, oral written submission and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the rebate claim of ₹ 28,89,150/- in respect of 10 ARE-1 pertaining to 187 cars exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ambiguity in 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 and the relevant date for this purpose. 9. Government noticed that rebate claim filed after one year being time barred cannot be sanctioned as categorically held in the case laws/judgments cited below 9.1 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 upon showing sufficient cause for not filing the claim earlier To begin with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t prescribed therein. 9.2 Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag Others vs. Ms. Katji Others reported in 1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) that when delay is within condonable limit laid down by the statute, the discretion vested the authority to condone such delay is to be exercised following guidelines laid down in the said judgment. But .when there is no such condonable limit and the claim is filed beyond time period prescribed by statute, then there is no discretion to any authority to extend the time limit. 9.3 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 jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
