TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; 2. Brie facts of the case are that the appellant is a merchant-exporter of excisable goods. The appellant filed a rebate claim of Rs. 4,35,889/- on 9-6-08 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of goods exported out of India with Assistant Commissioner, Division-IV, Gurgaon. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner found that the rebate claim, in respect of ARE-I No. 15/06-07, dated 11-9-2006 and ARE-1 No. 16/06-07, dated 20-9-2006 covered by the Shipping Bill No. 4310901 dated 20-9-2006 were time-barred. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant calling upon them as to why the rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,83,632/- should not be rejected for not satisfying the conditions of Section 11B of Central Excise Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taining to ARE-I No. 15/06-2007, dated 11-9-2006 and ARE-I No. 16/06-07, dated 20-9-2006 were exported vide Shipping Bill No. 43109, dated 20-9-2006 whereas the rebate claim was filed on 9-6-2008, after lapse of one year's period as stipulated under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. The rebate claim was rejected as time-barred by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and the said Order-in-Original was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant has filed their revision application mainly on the ground that the EP copy of Shipping Bill was given to him by Customs after 15 months and the delay was on his part. 8. Government observes that the rebate claim is required to be filed within one year of the relevant date as stipulated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equally circumscribed in regard to belated claims - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 12 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contextually, in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. [2003 (158) E.L.T. 274 (Bom.)], also, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court allowed a belated rebate claim in writ petition filed by the assessee. This Tribunal, acting under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, has no equitable or discretionary jurisdiction to allow any such claim de hors the limitation provisions of Section 11B." 10. Further, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag & Others v. Mst. Katji & Others reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.....