2014 (10) TMI 726 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - non export of goods within 6 months - extension of time for export - Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 6th September, 2004 - Held that - The application was filed with the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise much after six months, namely, 17th June, 2005 and extension was prayed for three months upto 31st October, 2005. The goods have been exported not relying upon any such extension but during the pendency of the application for extension. The precise date of export is 9th September, 2005. The Petitioners admitted their lapse and inability to produce the permission or grant of extension for further period of three months. - rebate claim has been rightly rejected by the Maritime Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Mumbai-III by his order which has been impugned in the writ petition - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to concurrent orders based on compliance with export notification conditions.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the concurrent orders on the grounds of compliance with the export notification conditions, specifically focusing on the requirement of exporting goods within six months from the date of clearance from the factory or warehouse. The appellant argued that the condition could be satisfied through extensions granted by the Commissioner of Central Excise. However, the court disagreed, noting that in this case, the goods were cleared for export on a specific date but were not exported within the stipulated time limit of six months. The application for extension was filed after the deadline, and the goods were exported during the pendency of the extension application, without relying on any granted extension. The court highlighted the precise date of export and the petitioner's admission of the lapse in producing the required permission or extension grant.

2. Based on the timeline of events and the failure to meet the export deadline as per the notification conditions, the rebate claim was rejected by the Maritime Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise. The court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the rejection was justified given the admitted facts and the sequence of events. The court found no errors of law in the decision-making process and concluded that there was no merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of the rebate claim, affirming the decision of the Maritime Commissioner.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the strict adherence to the export notification conditions, particularly the timeline for exporting goods from the factory or warehouse. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the specified deadlines and the inability to rely on extensions granted after the expiration of the initial timeline. The decision highlighted the significance of complying with the conditions set forth in the notification and upheld the rejection of the rebate claim due to non-compliance with the export deadline.