TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Government rejects rebate claims as time-barred under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Procedural lapses insufficient.</h1> The Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claims as they were time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The procedural lapses ... Denial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Delay due to non-availability of dealing (Central Excise) Assistant because he met with a serious accident and further lack of documents without which the department would not have accepted the claim - whether revision application is filed within statutory time limit - Held that:- The relevant date for filing rebate claim as given in Explanation B(a)(i) of Section 11B, is the date on which ship or the aircraft in which export goods are loaded, leave India. The one year time limit has to be calculated from said relevant date and not from date when the applicant was able to make claim claimed by applicant irrespective of the truth or otherwise in reasons of extreme contingencies for which energy one has to think or an alternative arrangements. - rebate claim filed after stipulated time limit of one year being time-barred in terms of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against assessee. Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of Rebate Claims2. Procedural Lapses in Filing Rebate Claims3. Jurisdictional Authority for Appeals4. Statutory Time Limit for Filing Rebate Claims5. Condonation of DelayIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of Rebate Claims:The applicant filed three rebate claims for duty and Education Cess amounting to Rs. 19,15,002/- and Rs. 38,300/- respectively, for goods exported on duty payment. These claims were filed after the expiry of one year from the date of shipping, leading to their rejection on grounds of time limitation. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both upheld the rejection of the rebate claims due to the claims being time-barred as per the statutory requirement under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Procedural Lapses in Filing Rebate Claims:The applicant admitted to procedural lapses, including the non-submission of proper documents along with the claims and the delay in filing. The reasons provided for the delay included the non-availability of the Excise-in-Charge due to a serious accident and delayed receipt of required documents from the Customs House Agent. The applicant contended that these procedural lapses did not cause any loss to the revenue and should not waive their statutory right to claim the rebate.3. Jurisdictional Authority for Appeals:The applicant initially filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, stating that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide on rebate claims relating to duty on exported goods. Subsequently, the applicant filed a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was considered by the Central Government.4. Statutory Time Limit for Filing Rebate Claims:The Government observed that as per Explanation (A) to Section 11B, the refund includes the rebate of duty on exported goods, and the rebate claim must be filed within one year from the relevant date. The relevant date is defined as the date on which the ship or aircraft carrying the goods leaves India. The applicant's rebate claims were filed beyond this one-year period, making them time-barred.5. Condonation of Delay:The applicant sought condonation of the delay, arguing that the delay was due to bona fide reasons. The Government noted that the revision application was filed within the extended condonable period of three months, excluding the time spent pursuing the appeal before the CESTAT. However, the Government emphasized that the statutory requirement to file the rebate claim within one year is mandatory and cannot be condoned unless explicitly provided for under Section 11B.Conclusion:The Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claims, stating that the claims were time-barred as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The procedural lapses and the reasons for the delay provided by the applicant were not sufficient to override the statutory time limit. The revision application was thus rejected for being devoid of merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
