2014 (2) TMI 54 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - Rule 18 - Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated September 6, 2004 - Period of limitation of 6 months - Held that - applicant cleared the said goods for export on payment of Central Excise Duty and education cess under claim of rebate in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 under the proper cover of invoices dated 23-12-2005 and 27-12-2005 and ARE-1s. In the said shipping bills let export date is 30-8-2006. It is therefore obvious that the said goods were actually exported after a period of six months from the date of clearance from the factory. As per Clause 2(b) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 the excisable goods shall be exported within 6 months from the date on which they were cleared for export from factory of manufacture. Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 provides specific condition and limitation for the purpose of granting rebate of duty paid on the exported excisable goods. The Clause 2(b) of the said notification stipulates that the excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture, which has been violated by them. Moreover, they have not made any application for extension of time-limit before proper authority. They have not produced any permission granting extension of time limit from competent authority till date. The non-compliance of a substantive condition of Notification cannot be treated as a procedural lapse to be condoned - strict and plain reading of wording of the statute are to be strictly adhered to and at the same time statute as clarified in circulars is to be followed religiously - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim of rebate of Central Excise Duty beyond stipulated period.

Analysis:
The applicant exported goods and filed a claim of rebate of Central Excise Duty, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner due to the exportation date being beyond the six-month period. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disallowed, leading to a revision application filed by the applicant. The applicant argued that the Appellate Authority did not consider various case laws in their defense, causing a procedural infraction that should be condoned. The applicant cited several case laws to support their defense, emphasizing the need for natural justice principles to be applied. However, the Government found that the delay in filing the revision application was due to a postal error and proceeded to decide on the case merits.

The Government noted that the goods were exported after six months from the date of clearance, violating the conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. The applicant failed to apply for an extension of the time limit or provide genuine reasons for the delay in exportation. The Government analyzed the case laws cited by the applicant and found them inapplicable, emphasizing the need to adhere strictly to the statutory limitations and conditions for rebate claims. The Government referred to previous Supreme Court rulings to support their decision that non-compliance with substantive conditions cannot be treated as a procedural lapse.

Ultimately, the Government upheld the impugned order-in-appeal, stating that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) were legal and proper. The revision application was rejected for lacking merit, and the order was finalized accordingly.