2002 (6) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e period December, 1999 to February, 2000, they had purchased excisable goods on payment of duty from six different manufacturers and exported the same on 18-2-2000 and 7-3-2000; that they filed their claim towards rebate of duty on the excisable goods exported in terms of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; that the refund of the duty has been denied on the ground that the claim is hit by time- limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; and that the Disclaimer Certificate was filed later at the time of personal hearing whereas it was required to be submitted with AR4 only. The ld. Advocate, further, submitted that the claim is not time-barred as the period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 387 wherein it was held that the provisions under Rule 12A of the Central Excise Rules being followed by proviso relaxing the requirement thereof are directory in nature and not mandatory. 3. Countering the arguments Shri H.C. Verma, ld. DR, submitted that the Export had taken place on 18-2-2000 and 7-3-2000 when the period specified in Section 11B of the Act for claiming rebate was six months and such refund claim has been filed on 1-11-2000 which is beyond six months period the claim is time-barred. He also reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Disclaimer Certificate was required to be submitted by the manufacturer in favour of the Exporter on AR 4 itself which is missing and the Boards Circular dated 2-....