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 upholds rejection of time-barred rebate claim, emphasizing strict statutory time limits.</h1> <h3>Orient Micro Abrasives Limited Versus Union Of India & Anr.</h3> Orient Micro Abrasives Limited Versus Union Of India & Anr. - 2020 (371) E.L.T. 380 (Del.) , [2020] 12 G S.T.R. - OL 363 (Del) Issues:1. Quashing and setting aside of Order No.692/18 - CX, 10th December, 2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Rejection of rebate claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of being time-barred.3. Challenge of the rejection of rebate claim by the Revisionary Authority.4. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Act regarding the time limit for filing rebate claims.5. Consideration of technical fault leading to delay in filing rebate claim.Issue 1: Quashing and setting aside of Order No.692/18 - CX:The petitioner sought to quash Order No.692/18 - CX, dated 10th December, 2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which rejected the petitioner's rebate claim on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition.Issue 2: Rejection of rebate claim on time-barred grounds:The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the petitioner's rebate claim, stating it was filed after the one-year time limit from the date of export of the goods. The rejection was based on the mandatory requirement under Section 11B of the Act, which necessitates rebate claims to be filed within one year of the export of goods.Issue 3: Challenge of rejection by the Revisionary Authority:The petitioner challenged the rejection of the rebate claim by the Revisionary Authority, contending that the claim was not time-barred. The Revisionary Authority upheld the rejection, citing precedents like Union of India vs. Uttam Steel Ltd. and judgments from the Bombay and Madras High Courts.Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 11B regarding time limit for rebate claims:The High Court analyzed Section 11B of the Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the one-year time limit for filing rebate claims. The court referred to judgments like Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India, affirming the importance of complying with the stipulated time limit.Issue 5: Consideration of technical fault leading to delay:The petitioner argued that a technical fault at the respondent's end delayed the availability of necessary documents for filing the rebate claim within the one-year limit. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that statutory time limits in taxing statutes are strict and must be adhered to without exceptions.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred. The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory time limits for filing rebate claims, stating that no provision permits relaxation of the stipulated one-year time limit. The judgment reaffirmed the sacrosanct nature of periods of limitation in taxing statutes, citing precedents and statutory provisions to support its decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
