2004 (7) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of duty on goods exported - Rebate claims filed beyond the period of limitation - Time barred u/s 11B - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court s rulings cited by the D.R. In Miles India 1984 (4) TMI 63 - SC ORDER , it was held by the Apex Court, on the facts of that case that the Customs authorities acting under the Customs Act were justified in disallowing the refund claim as time-barred as they were bound by the period of limitation provided under Section 27(1) of the Act. Their lordships further observed that, if really the payment of duty was under a mistake of law, the appellants were at liberty to take recourse to alternative remedy. In the case of Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills 1988 (8) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT also, it was held by the Supreme Court that authorities functioning under an Act were bound by its provisions and that, if proceedings were taken under the Central Excise Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed under the Act would prevail. Here, again, their lordships observed that it was open to the department to initiate proceedings in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount due from the assessee. We note that this Tribunal followed the above rulings of the Apex Court and held, in the case of Rasoi Limited 1992 (9) TMI 198 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA , that the departmental authorities had no power to relax the period of limitation prescribed u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for a claim for rebate of duty. We have to follow the rulings of the Apex Court. It has been held by their lordships that authorities working under the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act have no power to relax the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B and Section 27 respectively of the two Acts. The lower authority, by rejecting the belated rebate claims of the appellants, has only acted in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. This Tribunal is also one of the authorities acting under the aforesaid Acts and our powers vis-a-vis belated rebate claims are equally circumscribed. We, therefore, are unable to condone the delay of the rebate claims filed by the appellants. In the result, the order of the Commissioner is affirmed and this appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal concerns the rejection of a claim for rebate of Central Excise duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise as time-barred, based on the dates of export of goods and the applicable statutory provisions.

Summary:
1. The appeal challenges the rejection of the rebate claim for duty on goods exported between December 1999 and August 2001 as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, filed on 29-1-2003, beyond the export dates.

2. The main contention is the relevance of Section 11B's limitation in the absence of a specific time limit under Rule 18, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd., emphasizing that Section 11A wouldn't apply if the rule lacks a time limit provision.

3. The appellant's counsel argues that Section 11B's time limit is procedural, not substantive law, relying on the Bombay High Court's Uttam Steel Ltd. v. Union of India, suggesting the Commissioner could allow claims if goods were exported, even if conditions weren't fully met.

4. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) opposes, citing case law like CCE v. Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills, emphasizing the Commissioner's lack of power to relax the statutory time limit under Section 11B, supporting the rejection of belated claims.

5. The Tribunal notes the dispute over the High Court's ruling in Uttam Steel Ltd., clarifying that when Section 11B's remedy is barred, the Commissioner cannot entertain claims filed beyond the limitation, aligning with Supreme Court precedents and denying the appellant's arguments.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal affirms the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appeal challenging the time-barred rebate claim for Central Excise duty on exported goods.