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>Court rules in favor of manufacturer exporter challenging rebate claim rejection, directs reevaluation without time-bar, emphasizing merit & compliance.</h1> <h3>Apar Industries (Polymer Division) Versus Union of India</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a manufacturer exporter, in a case challenging the Government's rejection of rebate claims filed in an ... Denial of rebate claims - export of goods - defect in the original application - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Admitted facts are that the petitioner had made necessary declarations in format of Annexure-19 which is prescribed under Rule 19 of the said Rules. Along with it, the petitioner had also supplied documents of proof of export and for that rebate would be made. We notice that Rule 18 of the said Rules pertains to rebate of duty and provides for rebate claims by following the procedure prescribed by the Government of India under a notification. Rule 19 of the Rules pertains to export without payment of duty. Thus, both these Rules operate in vastly different fields. It is in terms of Rule 18 that the Government of India under notification No.19/2004 laid down detailed procedure for making rebate claims. On the other hand, Annexure-19 is prescribed for declaration necessary for export without duty in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules - neither Rule 18 nor notification of Government of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and provide for any specific format for making such rebate applications. The Department, therefore, should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect, could have been asked to be cured. When the petitioner re-presented such rebate applications in correct form, backed by necessary documents, the same should have been seen as a continuous attempt on part of the petitioner to seek rebate. Thus seen, it would relate back to the original filing of the rebate applications, though in wrong format. These rebate applications were thus made within period of one year, even applying the limitation envisaged under Section 27 of the Customs Act. - Appeal disposed of. Issues:Challenge to Government order rejecting rebate claims filed in incorrect format and treated as time-barred.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Rebate Claims in Incorrect FormatThe petitioner, a manufacturer exporter, challenged the Government order rejecting rebate claims filed in an incorrect format. The petitioner contended that despite the applications being in the wrong format, the intention to claim rebate was clear. The Department returned the applications, deeming them time-barred upon re-presentation with supporting documents. The Government affirmed the decisions, leading to the petition.Issue 2: Timeliness of Rebate ClaimsThe petitioner argued that the rebate claims were filed in time, albeit in the wrong format. The absence of a specific format in the Rules and the subsequent re-presentation with supporting documents should have validated the original filing date. The Department, however, rejected the claims as time-barred, citing they were beyond one year.Issue 3: Lack of Time Limit in RulesThe petitioner further contended that Rule 18 and the Government's procedure under it did not prescribe any time limit for rebate claims. The Department erred in applying the limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act to rebate claims, as per the petitioner's argument.Court's DecisionThe Court noted that the petitioner's declarations in Annexure-19 format were for export without duty under Rule 19, not rebate claims under Rule 18. The absence of a specific format for rebate claims in Rule 18 or the Government's notification should have led the Department to treat the original applications as rebate claims. The Court directed the Department to examine the rebate claims on merit, setting aside the previous orders and the revisional order. The Department was instructed to process and decide the rebate claims as per the Rules, emphasizing the continuous attempt by the petitioner to seek rebate within the one-year period, irrespective of the format error.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the petition in favor of the petitioner, directing the Department to reevaluate the rebate claims without considering them time-barred, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination based on merit and compliance with the Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
