2012 (10) TMI 376 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Writ petition - time-limit Held that - High Court under Writ jurisdiction cannot direct the custom authorities to ignore time-limit prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 even though High Court itself may not be bound by the time-limit of the said Section - Custom authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or cut contrary to Section 27 of Customs Act - As Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for the time-limit and there is no provision to extend this time limit. As such the revision application is clearly time-barred as it was filed after the time-limit specified under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred rebate claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application filed by a merchant-exporter against the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,83,632/- under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claim was filed on 9-6-08, after the goods were exported on 20-9-2006, leading to a delay of over one year. The Assistant Commissioner found the claim time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to the EP copy of the Shipping Bill being generated after 15 months by Customs. However, the government observed that the rebate claim must be filed within one year of the relevant date as per Section 11B, without provision for condoning delays. The applicant's failure to file the claim within the stipulated time led to its rejection as time-barred.

Referring to the case of Precision Controls v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, it was highlighted that authorities have no equitable jurisdiction to allow rebate claims beyond the limitation period set by Section 11B. The Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag emphasized that when a claim is filed beyond the prescribed time limit, no authority can extend it. Additionally, the case of UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company established that time limits set by statutes like Section 11B cannot be disregarded.

Considering the legal precedents and the lack of discretion to extend time limits under Section 11B, the government found no infirmity in the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the rejection of the revision application. Consequently, the revision application was deemed devoid of merit and rejected.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing rebate claims under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and highlighted the legal principles governing such claims, ultimately leading to the rejection of the applicant's revision application.