Rebate claims for duty-paid exports must follow the correct jurisdictional procedure and cannot be rejected as time-barred on that basis.

A rebate claim for duty-paid goods exported by a person other than the manufacturer must be processed under the procedure applicable to exports of duty-paid stocks outside the factory premises, with the Chief Accounts Officer of the Maritime Collector examining documents through the original collectorate. The proper jurisdiction to decide the claim lay with the Assistant Collector, Calcutta-B Division, and the claim was maintainable before that authority. Once filed before the competent authority, the claim could not be treated as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 189 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The matter was remitted for rebate to be granted if otherwise in order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rebate claim was filed before the proper authority having jurisdiction to entertain it. (ii) Whether the rebate claim was barred by limitation under the governing excise law.

Issue (i): Whether the rebate claim was filed before the proper authority having jurisdiction to entertain it.

Analysis: The goods were first cleared on payment of duty for home consumption and were later exported by an exporter other than the manufacturer. In such a situation, the procedure prescribed by the Board's circular governing export of duty-paid stocks outside the factory premises applied, under which the Chief Accounts Officer of the Maritime Collector was to scrutinize the documents through reference to the collectorate from which the goods had originally been cleared. The trade notice relied upon concerned a different factual situation involving export of goods initially cleared for export from the factory and did not govern the present case.

Conclusion: The proper authority to decide the rebate claim was the Assistant Collector, Calcutta-B Division, and the claim was maintainable before that authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the rebate claim was barred by limitation under the governing excise law.

Analysis: Since the claim was presented before the authority having jurisdiction, the filing before that authority was within time. The rejection on the basis of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 189 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not stand once the jurisdictional objection was negatived.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was not time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting the rebate claim were set aside and the matter was remitted to the proper authority to grant rebate if otherwise in order.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebate claim relating to duty-paid goods exported by a person other than the manufacturer must be presented and decided in accordance with the procedure applicable to such exports, and a claim filed before the proper jurisdictional authority cannot be rejected as time-barred on a mistaken view of jurisdiction.

---