2013 (11) TMI 950 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Dismissed for Rebate Claim Non-Compliance

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the rejection of a rebate claim under specific notifications as the appellant failed to comply with the ... Jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/s 35B of Central Excise Act – Rebate of duty - Held that:- The case is related to rebate of duty and hence appeal lies to the Joint Secretary (Revenue) and not to CESTAT – BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD [2012 (12) TMI 302 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] – The Tribunal has no power to act as Civil Court beyond its jurisdiction - if the appellant so chooses to seek the revisional jurisdiction, it may do so and if there is a delay in seeking remedy before that jurisdiction, it may file application for condonation of delay, which may be considered by that authority in accordance with law - The case is one of rebate of duty, hence CESTAT has no jurisdiction to decide this appeal in view of Clause (b) of first proviso to Section 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Decided against Assessee. Issues:Rejection of rebate claim under Notification No.45/2001-CE(NT) and Notification No.20/2004-CE(NT) - Jurisdiction of CESTAT vs. Joint Secretary, Govt. of India.Analysis:Issue 1: Rejection of Rebate Claim under Notifications:The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a rebate claim of Rs.48,798 under OIO No.SD/AC/320/11-12/R, dt.25.01.2012. The claim was rejected as the appellant did not follow the required procedure under Notification No.45/2001-CE(NT) and did not pay duty at the time of goods clearance. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating the appellant was not entitled to exemption under the mentioned notifications. The appellant argued for a refund of duty under Notification No.45/2001-CE(NT), relying on a judgment by CESTAT Delhi. However, it was noted that the appellant did not execute the necessary B-1 bond as required by the notification, making them ineligible for the exemption. The judgment cited by the appellant was deemed inapplicable due to non-compliance with the notification's conditions.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of CESTAT vs. Joint Secretary:The Revenue contended that the appeal should lie with the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, as it pertained to a rebate of duty. Citing a judgment involving Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., the Revenue argued that CESTAT did not have jurisdiction in cases related to rebate of duty. The judgment highlighted the limitations of the Tribunal's powers in cases involving losses under specific provisions of the Central Excise Act. Ultimately, due to the nature of the case being a rebate of duty, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal under Clause (b) of the first proviso to Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction to decide cases related to rebate of duty, directing the appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act.