TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s observed that all the ARE-1s were not complete in all respect as far as the endorsement of Customs department was concerned, therefore, all the rebate claims were returned to the party on 10-5-06 for necessary compliance accordingly. The assessee resubmitted all the rebate claims on 31-7-06 i.e. after completion of one year period from the date of let export order i.e. 13-7-05 in all cases. Since in the instant case, they have filed rebate claims duly complete in all respects on 31-7-06 therefore the claim shall be taken as filed only when all relevant documents are available. In the instant case, 31-7-06 is relevant date for the purpose of deciding the rebate claims in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the rebate claim amounting to Rs. 64,389/- is liable for rejection, on the grounds of limitation as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the assessee had not filed the rebate claim within one year period from the date of let export order. 2.2 The adjudicating authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Division-I had rejected the rebate claim on the grounds of limitation. 2.3&emsp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Aurangabad has wrongly taken the date of initial submission i.e. 14-2-06 as the date filing of claim and has held that the rebate claim was not hit by time-bar, which appears to be illogical and incorrect in view of the above mentioned provisions. 4. A notice under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the respondent M/s. Dagger Forst Tools Ltd., Aurangabad who filed their counter reply vide their letter dated 11-9-2008. Their main arguments are as under : 4.1 The grounds taken for rejection of rebate is Interpreted wrongly and as such defeated the intention of the CBEC and consequently of Ministry of Finance. The noticee respectfully submits in this regard that, the Commissioner has first of all has considered partial contents of this para, which are in his favour and supporting to deny the benefit to applicant. And this is against the principles of law, it is mandatory for one to read and consider complete paragraph to conclude proper meaning of the subject matter. The para 2.4 of chapter 9 of Central Excise Manual is reproduce below : "It may not be possible to scrutinize the claim without the accompanying documents and decide about its admissib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not mentioned all details of shipping bill in the certificate given at back side of the ARE-1. Without any doubt, this is the fault and mistake of the concerned customs officer and not of the noticee. Under these circumstances the Commissioner should have adhere with the above stated guidelines given by the Board and extend the refund to applicant. Whereas it is seen that the Commissioner has purposefully ignored the same and even deleted those instructions from the quotation quoted by him. Adjudication is representing the Law & Justice, Ministry of Finance, Government of India in extending due justice to assessee. He should be impartial as far justice is concerned. Therefore the act of non-consideration of material provisions, which are favouring noticee, and non-consideration of facts of the case in view to deny the due refund is indicates the Commissioner intend to extend great unjust to applicant and undue hassles which please be set aside. 4.4 In the SCN it alleged that, "the assessees has submitted 5 rebate claims on 14-2-2006 and during the scrutiny of the ARE-1 it is observed that, all the ARE-1s were not complete in all respect as far as endorsement of customs dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2 months to rectify his mistake is again not the fault of noticee. Further, the allegation in the SCN that, the relevant date is the date of resubmission of claim, is not supported by any legal provision. And hence in absence of any legal provision to deny the claim on the grounds of limitation is not sustainable in the Law. As such the claims of rebate has been filed in time under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.6 The office of the Asstt. Commissioner CE&C has failed to take action on rebate claim in view to dispose off the same within prescribed time as provided under law - hence department is liable to refund the amount with appropriate interest under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944; As per the instructions given by the CBEC vide its supplementary instructions to Excise Manual at para 3.2 of Chapter 9 on page No. 6.134 of Excise Manual 2006-07, the Divisional Office shall scrutiny the application of refund and intimate the discrepancy, if any, to assessee within 15 days from the date of receipt of application of refund. As such it is implied from the said verdict that, if assessee do not receive any communication from the divisional office pointing....