2017 (11) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Central Excise, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapters 28, 29 and 35 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner has an in-house Research & Development Unit (R & D Unit), which is duly registered with the Government of India, Ministry of Science and Technology, New Delhi. The petitioner has imported certain capital goods, mainly research and development equipments. The petitioner had imported certain R & D goods on concessional rate of Customs duties vide Customs Exemption Notification dated 1-3-2005. The Customs notifications either exempts payment of basic Customs duty,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rther claims that it had cleared/removed the Cenvat credit availed capital goods on payment of duty under claim for rebate as is evident from the copies of Central Excise invoices and ARE-1, and by following the procedure under Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, read with Section 26 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Since the petitioner had cleared the goods to SEZ on payment of duty under rebate claim, it filed two separate rebate claims, namely Rebate Claim No. 26 on 22-3-2010, claiming rebate of duty paid on Rs. 93,91,358/-, and rebate claim No. 62 on 13-7-2010, claiming rebate of duty paid on Rs. 7,21,211/-. However, on 21-12-2010, the Assistant Commissioner (GLT-1), LTU, Bangalore, partly allowed the rebate claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1944 ("the Act", for short) to condone the delay by further period of three months beyond the period of limitation. Despite the fact that the revision petition was delayed only by eight days, the Joint Secretary has rejected the revision petition on the technical ground that it is delayed by eight days. Therefore, the Joint Secretary has deprived the petitioner of his right to have access to justice by filing the revision petition. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has claimed that according to Rule 10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, the filing of the revision application is the date on which the application is received in the office of the Under Secretary. Since the application was received after a delay of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....present case, the petitioner had clearly stated that the revision application was submitted to the postal authority for being delivered at Delhi. But due to inefficiency of the postal department, the petition had reached Delhi, from Bangalore, after a delay of eight days. Once the petition was handed over to the postal department, the petition had no control over the delivery of the revision application in the office of the Under Secretary. Since the petition had been sent within the period granted by law, the petitioner had exercised due diligence. For, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the inefficiency of the postal department. 12. Since the petition was delayed only by eight days, there was no reason for the Joint Secretary to ha....