TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional Authority. The Respondent- authorities have partly granted the supplementary rebate claim made by the Petitioner as per section 11B of the Act of 1944 and partly rejected the same. It is against the rejection, the Petitioner is before us. 2. The Petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of flexible packaging material (laminates) falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Petitioner was desirous to appoint a distributor for distribution and selling the products in Africa. The Petitioner entered into a distribution agreement on 1 August 2006 with one Acumen Enterprises. Certain terms and conditions were agreed upon. Pursuant to the agreement, the Petitioner exported the goods, and filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise (Appeals) which was rejected by order dated 8 January 2010. Thereafter the Petitioner filed revision which was rejected by the impugned order dated 20 October 2011. 5. Since the Petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation, the statutory provision governing the period of limitation would be the subject matter of discussion. Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act states that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest may make an application for refund before expiry of one year from the relevant date. The period of limitation of one year commences from the Relevant Date. The relevant date as defined in Explanation (B) to this provision, states that for the purposes of goods expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. the date of shipment, the supplementary claims were time barred. 6. According to the Petitioner, in view of subsequent modification in the agreement, a contingency which the Petitioner did not anticipate when the goods left India on the abovementioned date, it was impossible for the Petitioner to claim rebate in respect of the excise duty paid pursuant to the modification within one year of the goods leaving India, and, therefore, the Petitioner's case would fall under Clause-(f) of Explanation (B). The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the fact that the Petitioner has paid excise duty after modification of the agreement is accepted and not in dispute and since it was not possible for the Petitioner to foresee the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to differential consideration. The Petitioner has relied upon the schedule appended to its agreement. The Schedule-1 appended to the agreement reads thus: "(a) within 30 days from April 1 of every Financial Year commencing after March 31, 2007, the Supplier shall provide to the Distributor, an estimate (based on the forecasted Orders provided by Distributor) indicative RMC + manufacturing overheads + administrative overheads + fright expenses estimated to be incurred by and in connection with the manufacture of the Packages during the Financial Year. b) Supplier shall endeavour to make the above estimate as accurate as possible based on accounts of the immediately preceding financial year and shall exclude from above calculation any ite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges in the agreement. This theory is slightly more elaborated in the appeal memo, but in the appeal memo though the Petitioner has given details pursuant to the assertion regarding modification, this aspect is not supported by any documents. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, states that a liberty be given to the Petitioner to produce all these documents to demonstrate that on facts it was not possible for the Petitioner to make supplementary claims within a period of one year from the date of shipment and, therefore, Petitioner's case was under Clause (f). 9. As on today, the Petitioner's claims for rebate have been rejected. The Petitioner has admittedly paid excise duty after the alleged modification. The Petitio....