TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary to the fulfillment of purpose of the legislation . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MPV ENGG. INDUSTRIES [ 2003 (3) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that 'Assessee who is eligible for exemption should not be deprived of benefit simply because authorities concerned took their own time in disposing of the application'. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and on appreciating the records of the writ petitions what is apparently evident is that the respondents took more than 2 years in deciding the application for extension of time which otherwise under the notification was required to be finalized within 7 days. If the respondents have taken an inordinately long period of time in deciding the application for extension of time, the benefit of the same tilts more towards the petitioner as the notification is a beneficial notification and the benefit of which should go in favour of the Assessee. The impugned order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) and also that passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority therefore deserves to be and is accordingly set- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his decision within 7 working days from the date of receipt of such request. 4. The petitioner in the instant case has made an application for extension of time to make exports beyond the period of 6 months. The application was filed on 18.12.2012. The application contained genuine reasons and documents in support justifying the delay caused and by seeking extension of time. On the basis of such extension of time the petitioner s claim for the rebate/refund before the jurisdictional officer i.e. the respondent no. 5. The claim for the rebate was denied by the Adjudicating Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority solely on the ground that the petitioner did not make the exports within the stipulated period of 6 months. It was the finding of the respondents that the petitioner did not obtain the necessary permission for making exports in the extended period of time. The application for extension of time admittedly was filed on 18.12.2012, but the same got rejected only after a period of more than 2 years on 10.04.2015 (Annexure P/14). The petitioner thereafter approached the Commissioner (Appeals) and later to the Revisional Authority also wherein both the appeal as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith an interval of more than 2 years on 10.04.2015. The impugned order therefore deserves to be interfered on this ground also. The counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on identical set of facts in the case of Kosmo Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Commr. Of C. EX. Kolkata-1 (2013) 297 ELT 345. 7. The counsel for the respondents per contra opposing the petitions submits that since there is a statutory requirement of having made all the exports within a period of 6 months enabling the dealer to claim for rebate/refund. According to the respondents, admittedly there was a delay of more than 6 months on the part of the petitioner in making the exports and therefore the application for extension of time was rightly rejected by the respondents. It was also the contention of the counsel for the respondents that the reasons assigned in the application also seeking for extension of time was not satisfactory enough, even the petitioner had not given plausible justifiable explanation upon certain queries being made to them subsequent to their request for extension of time being made. 8. According to the counsel for the respondents, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application for grant of rebate was that the export was not made within the stipulated period of 6 months. Further that the application for extension of time for export again was made beyond the period of 6 months. The Calcutta High Court in some what similar set of facts in the case of Cosmos HCPL (supra) in paragraph Nos. 19, 24 to 27 and 30 held as under: 19. When there is a time stipulation for export to avail of a benefit and the said time stipulation is not adhered to, it cannot really be said that there has only been infraction of a procedural requirement, as argued by Mr. Bagaria. However, the time stipulation of six months is not rigid. The time might be extended by Commissioner of Central Excise, in his discretion, in any particular case. 24. In Cosmonaut Chemicals v. Union of India reported in 2009 (233) ELT 46 (Guj.) a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held, and rightly, that a claim for rebate filed beyond the stipulated time limit, due to circumstances beyond the control of claimant could not deprive the claimant of his claim to rebate, when there was proof of export. 25. In Ford India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Operations Ltd. reported in 2005 (189) ELT 401 (S.C.), held that: Exemption was subject to production of essentiality certificate from Director General of Hydrocarbons at the time of import. The authority did not issue the certificate in time. It was held that exemption cannot be denied merely because certificates were required to be produced at the time of importation. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.P.V. Engg. Industries reported in 2003 (153) ELT 485 (S.C.) has held that 'Assessee who is eligible for exemption should not be deprived of benefit simply because authorities concerned took their own time in disposing of the application'. 14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and on appreciating the records of the writ petitions what is apparently evident is that the respondents took more than 2 years in deciding the application for extension of time which otherwise under the notification was required to be finalized within 7 days. If the respondents have taken an inordinately long period of time in deciding the application for extension of time, the benefit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
