TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Rejection of rebate claim by Hyundai Motor upheld as time-barred under Central Excise Act</h1> <h3>M/s Hundai Motor India Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai</h3> M/s Hundai Motor India Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai - TMI Issues involved:1. Rebate claim filed beyond the statutory time limit.2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing rebate claims.3. Discretion of authorities to extend time limits for filing claims.Analysis:Issue 1: The case involved a rebate claim filed by M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. for duty of excise paid on the export of cars. The claim was filed after one year from the relevant date, leading to a show cause notice being issued for rejection of a part of the claim as time-barred. The lower adjudicating authority rejected a portion of the claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who also upheld the rejection based on the statutory time limit of one year for filing rebate claims.Issue 2: The applicant contended that the relevant date for filing the rebate claim should be the date of payment of duty, which was within one year from the date of export. However, the Government observed that the relevant date for filing rebate claims is clearly defined in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The relevant date is determined based on the date of export by sea or air, as specified in the explanation provided in the Act.Issue 3: The Government cited various case laws to support the rejection of rebate claims filed beyond the statutory time limit. The judgments highlighted that when a claim is filed beyond the time period prescribed by the statute, there is no discretion for authorities to extend the time limit. The case laws emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing claims and the limitations on the authority's discretion in such matters. Based on these precedents and the clear provisions of Section 11B, the Government rejected the revision application and upheld the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred.In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application and upheld the rejection of the rebate claim filed by M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. as time-barred, in accordance with the statutory provisions and relevant case laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
