2014 (12) TMI 782 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - As per explanation(a) to section 11B, refund includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. As such the rebate of duty on goods exported is allowed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 subject to the compliance of provisions of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The explanation A of section 11B has dearly stipulated that refund of duty includes rebate of duty on exported goods. Since the refunds claim is to be filed within one year from the relevant date, the rebate claim is also required to be filed within one year from the relevant date. When the rebate claims are filed after, stipulated one year as mentioned in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the rebate claims are liable to be rejected on limitation. Though there is specific provision regarding time limit of filing rebate claim, there is no specific provision of filing rebate claim within 1 year from date of payment of duty as, contested by the applicant. Under such Circumstances, Government finds that original authority has rightly rejected this rebate claim which was filed beyond stipulated one year period and is clearly hit by limitation clause. As such it is rightly rejected and government does not find any, infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal upholding the rejection of said claim as time barred. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rebate claim filed beyond the stipulated one-year period.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing rebate claim.
3. Applicability of statutory time limit for filing rebate claims.
4. Legal precedents on the rejection of rebate claims filed after the time limit.

Detailed analysis:
1. The case involves a revision application by a company against the rejection of its rebate claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The claim was for the payment of a differential duty amounting to a specific sum. The rejection was based on the claim being filed after the stipulated one-year period from the relevant date.

2. The applicant argued that the relevant date for filing the rebate claim should be considered as one year from the date of payment of duty, not the date of export. The applicant contended that since the duty was paid after the export, the one-year period should be calculated from the payment date. However, the government observed that as per the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the relevant date for filing rebate claims is clearly defined based on the date of export.

3. The government highlighted that the statutory time limit of one year for filing rebate claims is a crucial aspect governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The explanation provided in the Act specifies the timeline for submitting rebate claims concerning exported goods. The case law cited by the government further reinforced the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limit for refund claims under the Act.

4. The judgment referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the High Court and the Supreme Court, emphasizing the significance of the time limit prescribed for filing rebate claims. The rulings underscored that when the claim is filed beyond the specified period, there is no provision for extending the time limit or condoning the delay. The government concluded that the rejection of the rebate claim due to being time-barred was justified based on the legal framework and precedents cited.

In conclusion, the revision application was rejected by the government based on the findings related to the time-barred rebate claim and the statutory provisions governing the filing of such claims. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limit for rebate claims under the Central Excise Act, as interpreted through legal precedents and statutory provisions.