2005 (8) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection due to delay in exporting goods.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.).
3. Applicability of Tribunal decisions in similar cases.

Issue 1: Rebate claim rejection due to delay in exporting goods
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their rebate claim, contending that they were unable to export the goods within the stipulated time period but had obtained an extension from the Commissioner of Central Excise. They argued that although there was a delay of almost ten days in the actual export beyond the extended period, they had submitted the shipping Bills within the granted extension. Citing precedents, the appellant asserted that as they had no control over the goods once handed over to the Customs authority, the delay in export should not be a basis for denying the rebate claim.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.)
The Revenue argued that as per Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), the goods were required to be exported within a specific period from the date of clearance for export from the factory or within an extended period approved by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Since the goods were actually exported after the extended period, the Revenue contended that the appellant was not entitled to the rebate. However, the admitted facts revealed that the shipping Bills were filed within the extended period granted by the Commissioner, even though there was a delay in the actual export.

Issue 3: Applicability of Tribunal decisions in similar cases
The Tribunal referred to previous judgments, such as Omega Bright Steel v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, to establish that delays in export could be condonable under certain circumstances where the exporter had no control over the process. In this case, the Tribunal found that the appellants had submitted the Shipping Bill to the Customs authority within the extended period, indicating that the delay in export was beyond their control. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the delay in actual export should not be a ground for denying the rebate claim when the shipping Bills were filed within the extended period.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, regarding the rejection of a rebate claim due to delays in exporting goods and the interpretation of relevant notifications and precedents in deciding the case.