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>Tribunal dismisses appeal on rebate claim time bar, emphasizes importance of correct legal forum.</h1> <h3>M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-II</h3> M/s Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-II - TMI Issues: Appeal against rejection of rebate claim on the ground of time barAnalysis:1. Issue of Jurisdiction: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to &8377; 17,81,396/- on the basis of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant argued that the rejection on the ground of time bar was legally untenable and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits.2. Contentions of the Parties: The appellant's representative contended that since the rebate claim was not considered on its merits, the Tribunal had the authority to review and decide on the matter. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for Revenue argued that the issue of rebate claims falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of India as per the first proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby ousting the Tribunal's jurisdiction.3. Decision and Reasoning: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, agreed with the Authorized Representative for Revenue. It was noted that whether the rebate claim was returned or rejected, the issue at hand pertained to rebate claims, making it fall under the purview of the forum prescribed under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter due to the first proviso to Section 35B of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appellant was granted the liberty to file the appeal before the appropriate forum. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.Conclusion: The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional issues in matters concerning rebate claims under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the need for cases to be presented before the appropriate forum as prescribed by the relevant legal provisions, thus ensuring the proper adjudication of disputes related to such claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
