Mandatory rebate limitation barred delayed claims; Rule 12 relaxation could not override the statutory six-month period.

Rebate claims filed after the six-month period under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were held to be barred by mandatory statutory limitation, and that limit could not be relaxed under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Delayed receipt of AR 4A buff copies did not justify condonation, particularly where a provisional claim could have been lodged within time on available export evidence. The Tribunal therefore upheld rejection of the rebate claims and treated the delay as incapable of being waived.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate claims filed beyond the six-month period were barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether the proviso to Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 empowered the Collector to condone such delay.

Analysis: The rebate claims were filed after the period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the six-month limit prescribed by the Act itself embodied a mandatory condition based on public policy and could not be waived by resort to the relaxation power under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It further held that delayed receipt of the buff copies of AR 4A forms did not justify relaxation of the statutory limitation, especially when a provisional claim could have been filed within time with available proof of export.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the rebate claims could not be condoned, and the claims remained barred by limitation. The rejection of the rebate claims was upheld.

---