TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certified as an ISO 9002 company and enjoys the status of a Trading House, conferred by the Ministry of Commerce. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been claiming the refund of Central Excise Duty, paid on the goods manufactured and exported by it, periodically. The claims made by the petitioner were also being sanctioned by the second respondent in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with the rules made thereunder. The petitioner had filed rebate claims, on 29-10-2007, for an amount of Rs. 31,25,957/-, as rebate of duty, paid on finished exported goods, in respect of four ARE1s. The rebate claims had been received by the second respondent, on 5-11-2007. The department had sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering the issue relating to limitation, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, especially, since, the second respondent had retained the application for rebate, in Form C. 6. It has been further stated that the matter had been adjudicated by the second respondent, who had passed the Order-in-Original No. 357(R)/2009-RSV, dated 2-6-2009. In the said order it had been held that the claim of rebate was time-barred, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by taking the date of the filing of the claims, as 23-12-2008, instead of 5-11-2007. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As such, the date of the re-submission of the claim, by the petitioner, cannot be taken as the date of the filing of the refund claim, for computing the period of limitation. 8. It had also been submitted that the Gujarat High Court, in United Phosphorus Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 (184) E.L.T. 240 (Guj.) had held that, once a refund application had been filed before the authority concerned the said authority cannot part with it by returning the same to the claimant. The application, in Form C, submitted by the petitioner had been retained by the second respondent, from 5-11-2007, till the final confirmation of the date of shipment on 23-12-2008. He had further submitted that the rebate claim made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the rebate claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation, as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the impugned orders challenged by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, cannot be held to be arbitrary and erroneous, as alleged by the petitioner. 11. The learned counsel had relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court, in Everest Flavours Ltd. v. The Union of India and Ors., 2012 (282) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.), wherein, it had been held that Section 11B specifically comprehends a duty on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India. Since, the statutory provision in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, bring....