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>Petition Dismissed: Time Limitation Key</h1> The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ruling that the petitioner's rebate claim filed on 17 July 2007 was beyond the one-year ... Period of limitation – rejection of rebate claim on ground of limitation - goods actually exported on 12.02.2006 – finally assessed copy of shipping bill handed over to assessee on 25.06.07 – rebate claim filed on 17.07.2007 – Held that:- U/s 11B a claim for the refund of duty has to be made within a period of one year from the relevant date; the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded leaves India would be regarded as the relevant date. Therefore, rejection of application for rebate filed on 17 July 2007 is justified – Decided against the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Time limit for filing a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.2. Whether the submission of Form ARE-1 constitutes the filing of a rebate claim.3. Requirement of the export promotion copy of the shipping bill for filing a rebate claim.Detailed Analysis:1. Time limit for filing a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:The core issue was whether Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, prescribes a time limit for making an application for rebate. The petitioner argued that Rule 18 and the relevant Notification dated 6 September 2004 do not stipulate any time limit. However, the court noted that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates that a claim for refund must be made within one year from the relevant date, applies to rebate claims. The court emphasized that Explanation (A) to Section 11B includes a rebate of excise duty on exported goods, thus bringing rebate claims under the purview of Section 11B. Therefore, Rule 18 cannot operate independently of Section 11B's limitation period.2. Whether the submission of Form ARE-1 constitutes the filing of a rebate claim:The petitioner contended that the submission of Form ARE-1 should be considered as the filing of a rebate claim. The court rejected this argument, stating that the mere submission of ARE-1 does not constitute a valid rebate claim. The court referred to the Notification dated 6 September 2004, which outlines the procedure for filing a rebate claim, including the submission of various documents such as the original copy of ARE-1, invoices, and self-attested copies of shipping bills. The court also highlighted that under Section 11BB, interest is payable if the refund is not processed within three months from the date of receipt of the application, implying that a formal application with all required documents is necessary for a valid rebate claim.3. Requirement of the export promotion copy of the shipping bill for filing a rebate claim:The petitioner argued that the limitation period should not commence until the export promotion copy of the shipping bill is available. The court dismissed this argument, citing Paragraph 8.3 of the CBEC Excise Manual and a Trade Notice dated 1 June 2004, which state that a self-attested copy of the shipping bill is sufficient for a rebate claim. The court also clarified that there are two types of rebates: one on duty paid on excisable goods and another on duty paid on materials used in manufacturing such goods. For the former, a self-attested copy of the shipping bill is required, while for the latter, an export promotion copy is needed. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim was governed by the former, thus only requiring a self-attested copy.Conclusion:The court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, ruling that the petitioner's rebate claim filed on 17 July 2007 was beyond the one-year limitation period from the relevant date of 12 February 2006. The court emphasized that compliance with the statutory limitation period in Section 11B is mandatory. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
