2009 (10) TMI 559 - HC - Central Excise

Claims for rebate - made more than one year after the date of shipment of the goods - authority has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the claim for refund after expiry of the period of one year - Held that - claim for rebate within one year from the relevant date as is required under Section 11B of the Act - claim for rebate within one year from the relevant date as is required under Section 11B of the Act - claim rejected

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on grounds of being time-barred.

Analysis:
The petition arose from the rejection of rebate claims by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad, pertaining to duty paid on exported goods under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner, a manufacturer of machine parts, contended that they were entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for duty paid on exported goods in 2007. However, the applications for rebate were rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to the filing of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner's advocate argued that despite the claims being made more than a year after the goods' shipment, the court could use its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant the rebate even after the one-year period. However, Section 11B of the Act mandates that applications for refund must be filed within one year from the relevant date. The court highlighted that the Act does not allow for applications to be entertained after this one-year period, and as the petitioner failed to do so within the stipulated time, the rejection of rebate claims was deemed appropriate.

Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized that exceptions to the one-year rule were only made in exceptional circumstances, such as mutual mistakes leading to erroneous credit reversals. Without such peculiar circumstances, the benefit of rebate could not be extended to the petitioner. Additionally, the court cited a Supreme Court judgment underscoring that all refund claims must adhere to the relevant provisions in force at the time, emphasizing the importance of timely filing and processing of refund claims under Section 11B.

Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments, concluding that the rejection of the rebate claims as time-barred was justified. With no other contentions raised, the petition was dismissed, and the notice was discharged, affirming the Assistant Commissioner's decision to reject the claims.