Extended limitation and rebate recovery fail where facts were disclosed and a sanctioning officer's jurisdictional defect is only procedural.

Recovery of rebate was held time-barred because the rebate claims had been supported by duty-payment and export documents already before the department, with no concealment of material facts, suppression, or wilful misstatement to justify the extended limitation period. The note also treats a sanctioning officer's lack of jurisdiction as a procedural irregularity, not a basis to recover rebate where duty payment and export of the goods were otherwise undisputed and the rebate had already been verified and granted. On that reasoning, the revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the recovery proceedings were found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for recovery of rebate was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement. (ii) Whether rebate sanctioned by an officer lacking jurisdiction could be treated as illegal and recovered on that ground.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for recovery of rebate was barred by limitation in the absence of suppression or wilful misstatement.

Analysis: The rebate claims had been scrutinized and sanctioned on the basis of documents showing duty payment and export of the goods. The records disclosed that the department was aware that the goods were bought out and exported in original packing, and the ARE-1 form together with supplier invoices was available with the rebate claim. On these facts, there was no concealment of material facts and no basis for invoking the extended period of limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred and could not be sustained under the extended limitation period.

Issue (ii): Whether rebate sanctioned by an officer lacking jurisdiction could be treated as illegal and recovered on that ground.

Analysis: The rebate had already been granted after verification, and the defect pointed out was only that the sanctioning officer was not the proper officer. Since payment of duty and export of the goods were not in dispute, the jurisdictional irregularity was treated as a procedural matter and not a ground to deny the substantive rebate already granted.

Conclusion: The rebate could not be recovered merely because it was sanctioned by an officer said to lack jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the recovery proceedings were held unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where relevant facts are disclosed and the department is aware of the nature of the transaction, the extended period for recovery cannot be invoked absent suppression or wilful misstatement, and a jurisdictional irregularity in sanction of rebate does not by itself justify recovery of a rebate otherwise found admissible.

---