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 sets aside rebate claim rejection under Central Excise Act, prioritizing justice over procedural delays.</h1> <h3>Banswara Syntex Limited Versus Union of India, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, The Joint Secretary</h3> The court allowed the petition challenging the rejection of a rebate claim under the Central Excise Act due to a delay in filing. The court emphasized ... Rebate - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Time limitation - Held that: - In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the shipping bill itself was delivered to the petitioner after a lapse of one year and the petitioner after having the same filed the application to have rebate at earliest - In absence of shipping bill it would have not been possible for the claimant to make an application in accordance with law to claim the rebate as per Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. In view of it, we are of considered opinion that no justification was available with the respondents to reject the claim application without examining its merits. So far as the interpretation of Section 11-B of the Act of 1944 is concerned, no doubt that the golden principle of interpretation, at the first instance, is always required to be applied while interpreting a statute, but in relation to the provision in question it would be appropriate to notice that it mentions the ‘date relevant’ and further that a claim application can be filed by placing relevant documents alongwith it, as such, the provision is not conveying the simple meaning, as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents want to put forth - decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand. Issues involved:Validity of the order passed by the revisional authority under the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding rejection of rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 due to limitation as per Section 11-B of the Act of 1944.Detailed Analysis:The petition was filed to challenge the order passed by the revisional authority affirming the rejection of the rebate claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Central Government. The claim was rejected as it was not filed within one year from the date of shipment, as required by Section 11-B of the Act of 1944. The petitioner argued that the delay in claiming the rebate was due to the non-issuance of the shipping bill by the Customs Department until after a year from the date of shipment.The petitioner contended that as per supplementary instructions provided under a specific notification and CBEC's Excise Manual, it was mandatory to furnish the shipping bill along with the rebate claim. They cited a Division Bench judgment of the court in Gravita India Ltd. v. Union of India to support their argument that the limitation period should start from the date when necessary documents to substantiate the refund claim were furnished.On the other hand, the respondents argued that Section 11-B of the Act of 1944 clearly stipulates that the rebate claim should be made within one year from the relevant date, and the petitioner failed to comply with this requirement. They relied on the judgment of Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor to emphasize the need to adhere to the specific language of the statute without interpretation based on advantages or disadvantages.The court, after considering the arguments, referred to the Division Bench judgment in Gravita India Ltd. and agreed that procedural requirements should not defeat the cause of justice. It noted that the delay in claiming the rebate was due to the delayed issuance of the shipping bill, which was beyond the petitioner's control. The court found that the rejection of the claim without examining its merits was unjustified.Regarding the interpretation of Section 11-B, the court highlighted that the provision mentions the 'date relevant' and allows for the filing of a claim application with relevant documents. The court concluded that the petition deserved acceptance, and the orders rejecting the rebate claim were set aside. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-examine the application and decide on it within two months.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances leading to the delay in claiming the rebate and directing a fresh examination of the application on its merits within a specified timeframe.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
