TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y holding that original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 could be submitted only after stipulated one year and hence, the rebate claims are treated to be filed only after 1 year stipulated time period. As observed in para (8) above, once the initial rebate claims filed within 1 year of date of export, although without original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 the same is to be treated as filed on the date when it was initially filed and as such cannot be treated as time barred. Therefore, the rebate claim in question is required to be sanctioned to the applicant considering the same as filed within one year time limit. As per provisions of Section 11(BB) of the Central excise Act 1944, interest at applicable rate is required to be paid from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. In these cases, since there has been delayed payment of refund/rebate beyond stipulated three months. Hence, interest of delayed payment of rebate may be allowed as per law, wherein rebate claims have been held admissible - Decided Partly in favour of assessee. - F. No. 195/624-626/13-RA - 242-244-14-cx - Dated:- 20-5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 11,29,300/-pertaining to Shipping Bill No. 6176428 dated 31-3-2008 being hit by the time bar clause as per Section 11B of the Central. Excise Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Applicants humbly submits that Revisionary Authority in his order dated 28.09.2011 has provided the necessary guide lines for adjudication in respect of the subject rebate claims respectively as follows: 9. Govt. holds that rebate claim in not to be sanctioned in the absence of original duplicate ARE-1 as the same is not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT). 11.4 The third rebate claim of ₹ 32,28,131/- was rejected on the ground of being time barred. But applicant is claiming that ship carrying export goods left India on 08.06.08 the rebate claim initially filed on 21.08. 08 was re-submitted on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Arya Exports Industries as reported in [2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.)] 4.5 Both the lower authorities have ignored the interest aspect on the delayed sanctioned rebate claims under which section they passed the impugned order-in-original order-in-appeal viz., Section 11B(2). Hence, such incomplete orders need to be quashed. The applicant humbly demands the interest be paid to them on amount already paid would be paid on aforesaid claimed rebate. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 3.4.2014 was attended by Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate and Shri R.V. Karegaonkar, Sr. Manager (Finance) of applicant, on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral written submissions and perused the impugned orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 7. Government observes that Adjudicating authority rejected the claims being time barred and also on the ground of non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the appeals before `Commissioner (Appeals) who after consideration of the facts rejected the. three appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time Limit to be computed from the date on which refund/rebate claim was initially filed and not from the date on which rebate claim after remaining defects was submitted section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of above, the said rebate claims cannot be treated as time barred since it was originally filed before department which is well within the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government is of considered view that the rebate claims initially filed within one year are to be considered filed in time and are to be sanctioned in accordance with law. 8.2 In respect of order-in-original No.773/Rebate/VIII/CEX/11-12 dated 30.12.2011, the original authority in para (1) of the said order-in-original has stated, that the rebate claims of ₹ 3807717/- were filed on 25.5.2009. In this case, the AREs-1 pertain to August 2008, September 2008 and March 2009. However he rejected the substantial part of rebate claims as time barred by holding that original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 could be submitted only after stipulated one year and hence, the rebate claims are treated to be filed only after 1 year stipulated time period. As o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bate claims cannot be treated as time barred as per discussions in foregoing paras. As regard other three AREs-1 i.e. ARE-1 No.178/8.3.08, 179/9.3.08 and 180/10.3.08 observations are as under: I. It can be seen from table of para (2) of impugned order-in-original, goods covered vide ARE-1 No.178/8.3.08 were exported vide three shipping bill i.e. shipping bill No.6110646 dated 11.3.2008 (Mate receipt dated 15.5.2008); shipping bill No.6108390 dated 10.3.2008 (Mate receipt dated 13.4.2008); shipping bill No.6108722 (Mate receipt dated 20.4.2008). Rebate claims were filed on 22.4.2009. As such, rebate claims in respect of shipping bill No.6110646 where the goods were sailed on 15.5.2008 was only filed in 1 year stipulated time period and hence, cannot be rejected as time barred and required to be sanctioned. In respect of other two shipping bills, the claims are clearly time barred and hence, rightly rejected. II. It can be seen from table of para (2) of impugned order-in-original, goods covered vide ARE-1 No.179/07-08 dated 9.3.2008 were exported vide three shipping bill i.e. shipping bill No.6114399 dated 12.3.2008 (Mate receipt dated 20.4.2008); shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
