TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed: Late Rebate Claims Rejected Due to Time Limit.</h1> <h3>ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., MADRAS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</h3> The Tribunal upheld the rejection of eight rebate claims by the appellant-company due to being filed after the prescribed six-month period under Section ... - Issues:1. Appeal for setting aside an order and granting rebate of excise duty.2. Rejection of rebate claims by the Collector and the subsequent appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs.3. Appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the Board.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Tribunal was regarding the rejection of eight rebate claims filed by the appellant-company with the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, due to being filed after the prescribed six-month period under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Central Board of Excise and Customs upheld the rejection, stating that the delay was not adequately explained and could not be condoned by the Collector. The appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal.2. The appellant argued three main points before the Tribunal: a) past instances of condonation of delay in filing claims, b) delay due to non-receipt of AR 4A forms from the Custom House, and c) the Collector's power to condone delays under the proviso to Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. The Department confirmed that some claims were filed before the Act came into force, and others were within the six-month period from shipment.3. The Tribunal considered whether the Collector could waive the time-limit for filing rebate claims under Section 11B. It was held that the time-limit was a public policy indicator and could not be overlooked by the Collector. The delay in receiving AR 4A forms was not a valid reason for waiver, and the appellant could have filed a provisional claim with supporting export documentation within the time frame. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the Board's decision to reject the claims as time-barred under Section 11B legally sound and dismissed the appeal.
TaxTMI 
