9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 261 - AT - Central ExciseJurisdiction - Rebate of duty - exercise of power under Section 11A and recovery of interest in terms of Section 11AB - The provision of law comprised under clause (b) to the said proviso to Section 35B(1) of the said Act clearly provides that when an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to subject of rebate of duty on excisable goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India, the Tribunal cannot entertain any appeal against such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) nor will have jurisdiction to deal with any issue relating to rebate - Since the impugned order relates to the issue of rebate, the Tribunal cannot have jurisdiction in the matter.
Issues: Jurisdiction of CESTAT in relation to orders regarding rebate of duty on exported goods.
In this case, the appellants challenged an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh, which dismissed their appeal against the Additional Commissioner, Mohali's order for recovery of erroneously granted rebate of duty in cash. The Additional Commissioner had ordered recovery of the amount and interest under Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on a show cause notice issued in relation to sanction orders given to the appellants between August 2007 to July 2008. The issue revolved around whether the CESTAT had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the rebate of duty on exported goods. The Tribunal analyzed Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, which deals with appeals to the CESTAT. The proviso to this section states that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in relation to orders concerning rebate of duty on goods exported outside India. The law clearly excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction when the order pertains to rebate of duty on goods exported. Despite the appellants' argument that the impugned order was passed under Sections 11A and 11AB, the Tribunal held that since the issue primarily related to rebate of duty, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as per the proviso of Section 35B. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on grounds of jurisdictional limitations.
|
