TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore Commissioner (Appeals) who after consideration of the facts rejected the three appeals vide Order-in-Appeal No.87-89/10 dated 3.5.10. In all the three cases applicant filed Revision applications Nos.195/661-663/10, against the said Order-in-Appeal. The Joint Secretary (RA), New Delhi vide Revision Order No.1245-1247/11-CX dated 28-9-2011 remand the matter to the original authority for fresh decision in the light of observations made in the said Revision Order. 2.1 The original authority in remand proceedings vide impugned orders-in-original decided the matter as under: 2.1.1 The original authority allowed rebate claim of Rs. 1,16,337/- in respect of ARE-1 No 16 dated 21-9-2008 and 25 dated 21-1-2008 out of rebate claim of total 8 ARE-is. The remaining 6 ARE-1s involving duty of Rs. 53,04,543/- were rejected by the original authority being hit by time bar clause as per Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act. 2.1.2' Out of total of 7 ARE-1s,' original authority allowed-rebate claim of Rs. 2,17,010/-in respect of one ARE-1 No.30 dated 27-3-2009 and rejected rebate claims in respect of 6 ARE-1s involving rebate of Rs. 35,90,707/- being hit by time bar clause as per Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the Range Superintendent, who suggest to reject the rebate claims amounts to Rs. 11,29,310/ not to be sanctioned, as time barred. But these decisions of both the lower authorities are against well settled law of the land on the issue, hence not sustainable & needed to be set aside & quashed. 4.2 The applicants place reliance on the following orders by various judicial forums squarely applicable to the instant cases: * GOI order No.1755/2010-CX dated 20.12.2010 in the matter of M/s Dagger Forst Tools Ltd. as reported in [2011 (271) ELT 471 (GOI)] * Hon'ble Tribunal Ahmedabad in the matter of M/s Angiplast Pvt. Ltd. as reported in [2010 (19) STR 838 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] * GOI order No.774/2006-0( dated 05.09.2006 in the matter of M/s IOC Ltd. as reported in [2007 (220) ELT 609 (GOI)] * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of M/s Arya Exports & Industries as reported in [2005 (192) ELT 89 (Del.)] 4.3 The rebate applications were initially filed within 1 year of date of sailing and hence it is never a case of time bar & cannot be liable to be rejected under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Original Authority observed the relevant date form Mate Receipt & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year from date of export and hence, these rebate claims should be treated as filed in time and should not be rejected as time barred for the reasons of non-submission of original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 in 1 year time period. 8.1 Government notes that there are catena of judgment wherein it has been held that time limit to be computed from the date on which refund / rebate claim was originally filed. High Court and CESTA Tribunal, have held in following cases that original refund/rebate claim filed initially within prescribed time limit laid down in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the claim resubmitted along with some required documents/prescribed format on direction of department after the said time limit cannot be held time barred as the time limit should be computed from the date on which rebate claim was initially filed. (i) CCE Delhi-I Vs. Aryan Export & Ind. 2005 (192) ELT 89 (DEL.) (ii) A Tosh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACCE 1992 (60) ELT 220 (Cal.) (iii) CCE Bolpur Vs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time barred as initially the rebate claims were filed on 3.6.2009, while the sailing date was 16.5.2008 as per Mate Receipt date. In this regard, Government observes that adjudicating authority has stated the date of filing the rebate claim on 3.6.09. The applicants had claimed that initially they had filed said rebate claims on 21.8.2008. Government had asked the original authority in the above said GOI Order bated 28.9.11 to verify the fact whether said claim was filed initially on 21.8.08. Original authority in his order dated 30.12.11 is silent on this aspect. Government notes that original authority in his earlier order-in-original No.618/refund/PVIII/CEX/08-09 dated 6.1.2009 passed in first round of adjudication proceedings has clearly mentioned that the claims were filed on 21.8.2008 in 'prescribed format. Once the initial rebate claims filed within 1 year of date of export, although without original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 the same is to be treated as filed on the date when it was initially filed and as such cannot be treated as time barred. Therefore, the rebate claim in question is required to be, sanctioned to the applicant considering the same as filed within on....