Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Central Excise

        2012 (10) TMI 820 - CGOVT - Central Excise

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court upholds rejection of time-barred rebate claims under Section 11B; statutory time limits emphasized The court upheld the rejection of time-barred rebate claims in a case concerning the interpretation of the relevant date for rebate claims under Section ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Court upholds rejection of time-barred rebate claims under Section 11B; statutory time limits emphasized

                            The court upheld the rejection of time-barred rebate claims in a case concerning the interpretation of the relevant date for rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants' argument that supplementary claims were valid due to additional consideration was dismissed, emphasizing the one-year time limitation from the date of export. Legal precedents supported the decision, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory time limits for rebate claims. The revision application was dismissed, affirming the lower authorities' rejection of the claims based on statutory limitations.




                            Issues Involved:
                            - Time limitation for sanction of rebate claims
                            - Interpretation of relevant date for rebate claims
                            - Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944
                            - Judicial precedents on time-barred rebate claims

                            Time Limitation for Sanction of Rebate Claims:
                            The case involved revision applications filed against an order-in-appeal regarding rebate claims for goods exported under a price escalation clause. The adjudicating authority found certain claims to be time-barred, leading to subsequent appeals and the current revision application. The applicants argued that the supplementary claims were valid as they were related to additional consideration under the agreement with the buyer. However, the government noted that the time limitation for rebate claims is one year from the date of export, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the claims filed after this period were rightly rejected by the lower authorities.

                            Interpretation of Relevant Date for Rebate Claims:
                            The central issue revolved around determining the relevant date for rebate claims, specifically whether it should be computed from the date of export or from the date of payment of duty. The applicants contended that their case fell under a different clause of Section 11B, where the relevant date was the date of payment of duty. However, the government disagreed, stating that the relevant date for rebate claims in cases of goods exported out of India is the date of export, as defined in Explanation (B)(a)(i) of Section 11B. This interpretation led to the rejection of the time-barred rebate claims by the authorities.

                            Applicability of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944:
                            The applicants argued that their rebate claims were covered under specific clauses of Section 11B, which exempted them from the time limitation due to the nature of their supplementary claims. However, the government maintained that the provisions of Section 11B, particularly regarding the relevant date for rebate claims, were to be strictly followed. As a result, the claims filed beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of export were deemed time-barred and rightly rejected.

                            Judicial Precedents on Time-Barred Rebate Claims:
                            The government cited various legal precedents to support its decision on time-barred rebate claims. These precedents highlighted that authorities, including tribunals, do not have the discretionary power to entertain rebate claims filed beyond the statutory time limit set by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgments emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for filing rebate claims, with no room for discretion in cases where claims are submitted after the specified period. Consequently, the government upheld the rejection of the time-barred rebate claims by the lower authorities based on these legal principles.

                            In conclusion, the judgment focused on the strict adherence to the time limitation for rebate claims as outlined in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The interpretation of the relevant date for such claims, along with the application of legal precedents, guided the decision to reject the time-barred rebate claims in this case. The government upheld the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the revision application, emphasizing the statutory limitations on rebate claims under the central excise laws.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found