9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1007 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRevision application - rebate claims rejected on the grounds of limitation as not filed within one year period from the date of let export order - Held that - Para 2.4 of Chapter 9 of Central Excise Manual, the following lines are also mentioned that In case any document is not available for which the Central Excise or Customs Department is solely accountable the claim may be received so that the claimant is not hit by limitation period, initial date of filing of the rebate claim i.e. 14-2-06 is the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the rebate claims are not hit by limitation. Government observes that technical deviations or procedural lapses are to be condoned if there is sufficient evidence as the export of the duty paid goods. Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same, Revision application is rejected being devoid of merit.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the rebate claim submission. 2. Scrutiny and compliance of rebate claims. 3. Responsibility for document discrepancies. 4. Interpretation of procedural guidelines and legal provisions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of the rebate claim submission: The core issue revolves around whether the rebate claim was submitted within the stipulated time frame as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee initially filed the rebate claims on 14-2-06 for exports made on 12-7-05. The claims were returned on 10-5-06 due to incomplete endorsements by the Customs department and were resubmitted on 31-7-06. The adjudicating authority rejected the claims on grounds of limitation, asserting that the relevant date for filing was 31-7-06, which exceeded the one-year period from the export date. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the initial submission date of 14-2-06 should be considered, thus the claims were within the time limit. 2. Scrutiny and compliance of rebate claims: The scrutiny process by the Assistant Commissioner took approximately three months, which was beyond the 15-day period prescribed by the CBEC's Supplementary Instructions (Para 3.2 of Chapter 9). The delay in scrutiny and the subsequent return of claims for compliance were highlighted by the respondent as unreasonable and not their fault. The Government observed that the initial filing date should be considered since the delay was due to procedural lapses by the Customs department. 3. Responsibility for document discrepancies: The discrepancies noted were related to the Customs officer not filling in all details on the ARE-1 forms, though the export was certified. The respondent argued that this was the Customs officer's fault, not theirs, and thus should not impact the timeliness of their claim. The Government acknowledged that if a document is missing due to the Customs or Central Excise department's fault, the claim should be received to avoid being hit by the limitation period, as per Para 2.4 of Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Manual. 4. Interpretation of procedural guidelines and legal provisions: The Government scrutinized the procedural guidelines and legal provisions, particularly focusing on Para 2.4 of Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Manual, which states that claims should not be rejected if the delay is due to the department's fault. The Government concluded that the initial filing date of 14-2-06 should be considered the relevant date under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby ruling that the claims were not time-barred. Conclusion: The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the rebate claims were filed within the stipulated period and should not be rejected on grounds of limitation. The revision application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs was rejected as devoid of merit, emphasizing that procedural lapses by the department should not penalize the claimant. The initial submission date was deemed valid, and the rebate claims were to be processed accordingly.
|
