9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s registered under the provision of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is manufacturer of excisable goods namely Tyres and Tyres Tubes. The aforesaid items falls under Chapter Heading 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tarrif Act, 1985, hereinafter referred as 'Tarrif Act'. There are two plants/units which are indulged in manufacturing of the aforesaid goods. One plant is located at Modipuram and another at Paratpur, both in District Meerut, U.P. According to the petitioner the tyres are manufactured in Modipuram plant whereas the tubes are manufactured at Paratpur plant. The product of the petitioner company is being sold both in domestic market as also exported. The exports of the final products are being made from Modipuram plant only. The petitioner company has claimed certain rebates totalling a sum of Rs. 9,56,789/- under the provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, hereinafter referred as 'The Act'. When the petitioner has filed four rebate claims application a show cause notice dated 23.04.2013 has been issued by the respondent no. 1 by which the respondent no. 1 has asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the said refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13:- "I have gone through the Rebate Claim filed by the party with all the relevant documents submitted therewith and available records. I find that all the four rebate Claims were filed under Rule 18 and 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground that the goods i.e.'Automobile Tyres' Tubes & Flaps' were exported by them on payment of Central Excise Duty. In both the cases, the issue of exporting goods directly from the manufacturing unit/warehouse could not be compared with the present case, as the claimant is a registered manufacurer and having two different manufacturing units for two different goods. In view of the above, I find that the four Rebate Claims for Rs. 2,28,416/-, Rs. 2,26,321/-, Rs. 2,30,197/- & Rs. 2,71,855/- [Total amount to Rs. 9,56,789/-] are not admissible to the claimant." Against the order dated 12.07.2013 four separate appeals are filed by the petitioner by which the order passed in-original dated 12.07.2013 are challenged. The said appeals were filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Meerut-I. The appeals filed by the petitioner are registered bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in this behalf and shall be accompanied by a fee of,- (a) two hundred rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the application relates is one lakh rupees or less; (b) one thousand rupees, where the amount of duty and interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any Central Excise Officer in the case to which the application relates is more than one lakh rupees. Proviso of Sub-Section (3) of explanation to Section 35EE provides that no such fee shall be payable in the case of an application referred to in sub-section (1-A). In the instant case the petitioner has filed four revision applications under Section 35EE against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 09.12.2013, before the respondent no. 2 namely the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi on 13.05.2014. The petitioner while filing four revision applications mistakenly deposited the payment of Rs. 200/- each. The said payment was made by the petitioner company in favour of the respondent authority through E-payment. A notice has been issued by the office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944, a revision application is to be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1000/- when the amount of duty etc. levied by any Central Excise Officer is more than Rs. 1.00 lakh. This requirement of payment of fee before or at the time of filing the application is mandatory and no relaxation in this regard is provided under the aforesaid provision or any other Section. Thus if any application is not accompanied by the sepcified fee, such application cannot be considered as properly filed by the Government by virtue of the above mentioned provision. In the instant case, while the revision application was filed with the Government on 13.05.2014, the fee of Rs. 800/- has been paid only on 19.06.2014. Consequently, this application cannot be considered as a proper revision application until fee was paid on 19.06.2014. Finally the proper revision application in this case can be considered to have been filed only on 19.06.2014 by which date this application is time barred as a revision application can be filed only within 3 months from the date of communication of the Commissioner (Appeals) order as per Sub Section 2 of Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 which was received in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either on 3rd or on 4th June, 2014, whereas the fee was paid/deposited on 19.06.2014. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons given herein above and in view of peculiar facts of the present case, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the revision applications of the petitioner are rejected on the ground of laches. We further hold that the order impugned has been passed by the respondent no. 2 after a gap of more than about three and half years from the date of filing of the appeal and while passing the said order the respondent no. 2 has not looked into the contends of the notice dated 02.06.2014 which clearly stipulates a marginal period allowed to the petitioner to pay the short fee, for each of the revision applications @ Rs. 800/- within a period of 15 days. In the notice it is categorically and clearly mentioned that the registration can only be made finally on submitting the documents (in the instant case TR-6 Challan) showing the deposit of Rs. 800/- for each revision applications. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find the substance in the submission of the petitioner and further that the respondent no. 4 though has categorically re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
