Export rebate claims filed before the wrong officer may still be entertained if timely and otherwise valid

Rebate claims for exported goods filed before a non-jurisdictional Assistant Collector were treated as a procedural defect, not a fatal infirmity, where export was established and the claims were otherwise in order. The governing Rule 12 framework allowed rebate on exported goods, and the proviso permitted relaxation of notification conditions when export was proved. Claims first lodged at Calcutta and later transferred to Mysore were held entertainable if filed within time before the Assistant Collector, D Division, Calcutta and otherwise compliant.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate claims for exported goods filed before a non-jurisdictional Assistant Collector could be entertained and granted if otherwise within time and in order.

Analysis: The rebate claims were initially lodged with the Assistant Collector at Calcutta in accordance with the prevailing practice, but were later transferred to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector at Mysore and rejected as time barred. The governing provisions permitted rebate under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with a proviso enabling relaxation of notification conditions where export was established. The authority treated the wrong forum of presentation as a procedural defect rather than a fatal infirmity, and relied on the principle that a claim filed before an officer lacking territorial jurisdiction is not void ab initio if the claim is otherwise valid. The case was also distinguished from a mere substantive bar, since the export had in fact taken place and the delay arose from administrative transfer of the claim.

Conclusion: The rebate claims could be entertained and granted if they were filed in time before the Assistant Collector, D Division, Calcutta and were otherwise in order.

---