TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by respondent No. 2." 2. Short facts of the present petition are as under : The petitioner-Company is engaged in the activity of manufacture and export of cold roll stainless steel articles falling under Chapter 72 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act, the Central Government made Central Excise Rules, 2002 [for brevity, 'the Rules' hereinafter]. Rule 18 of the Rules pertains to rebate of duty to the effect that where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by a notification, grant rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods which shall be subject to conditions of limitations, if any, prescribed in this regard. A Notification being Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended came to be issued, directing that there shall be granted rebate of the whole of the duty paid on excisable goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Similarly, a notification being Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended also came to be issued directing that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11B of the Act as being time-barred. 6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the original documents were seized by the Directorate of Intelligence on 6/7-10-2004 which were returned by them only on 28-7-2006 and the rebate claims were filed immediately thereafter on 14-8-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order being Order-in-Appeal No. 77/2007 dated 1-8-2007 holding that the delay in filing the rebate claims were on account of the documents being in custody of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and therefore, the period during which the same were in custody of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the petitioner-Company could not have filed the claim and therefore the said period was required to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation. 7. Subsequent thereto, an Order-in-Original being No. MP/447/ Reb/08-09, dated 23-7-2008 came to be passed sanctioning rebate of total amount of Rs. 15,19,914/-. 8. Against the aforesaid order granting rebate, Central Excise Department preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Ahmedabad w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, the learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of relief as prayed for, and the prayers as set out in the petition are required to be granted and the impugned order bearing No. 857/10-CX., dated 18-5-2010 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance be quashed and set aside, and necessary direction be also given that the claim of rebate filed by the petitioner-Company be ordered to be entertained by the respondent No. 2. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that on perusal of the order passed by the Revisional Authority and the reasons assigned therein, the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of relief as prayed for in the petition. The Revisional Authority has considered in a exhaustive manner and came to a conclusion that the claim for rebate preferred by the petitioner is time barred in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has not explained the inordinate delay in preferring the claim for rebate Placing reliance on paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of Revenue Intelligence, the rebate claims were filed within the period of limitation. In support of this contention, reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals [supra]. 15. Before we resort to dealing with the submissions made by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner, it would be worthwhile to refer to paragraph 2.4 of chapter 9 of Central Excise Manual about which a reference is made in paragraph 2.4 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder [at page 73 of the compilation] and a copy whereof is also produced at annexure 'B' to the affidavit-in-rejoinder [pages 84-85 of the compilation]. The said paragraph 2.4 reads thus : "2.4 It may not be possible to scrutinize the claim without the accompanying documents and decide about its admissibility. If the claim is filed without requisite documents, it may lead to delay in sanction of the refund. Moreover, the claimant of refund is entitled for interest in case refund is not given within three months of the filing of claim. Consequently, submission of refund claim without supporting documents will not be allowed. Even if claim is filed by post or similar mode, the claim s....