2014 (12) TMI 868 - CGOVT - Central Excise

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 I1B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The explanation (a) of section 11B has clearly stipulated that refund of includes rebate of duty on exported goods. Since the refund 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 elate. There is no ambiguity in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding statutory time limit of one year for filing rebate claims and the relevant date for this purpose. - rebate claim filed after one year being time barred cannot be sanctioned. 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 Bing 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 assesse.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rebate claim filed beyond the statutory time limit.
2. Interpretation of relevant date for filing rebate claims.
3. Discretion of authorities to extend time limits for filing claims.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved a rebate claim filed by M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. for duty of excise paid on the export of cars. The claim was filed after one year from the relevant date, leading to a show cause notice being issued for rejection of a part of the claim as time-barred. The lower adjudicating authority rejected a portion of the claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who also upheld the rejection based on the statutory time limit of one year for filing rebate claims.

Issue 2: The applicant contended that the relevant date for filing the rebate claim should be the date of payment of duty, which was within one year from the date of export. However, the Government observed that the relevant date for filing rebate claims is clearly defined in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The relevant date is determined based on the date of export by sea or air, as specified in the explanation provided in the Act.

Issue 3: The Government cited various case laws to support the rejection of rebate claims filed beyond the statutory time limit. The judgments highlighted that when a claim is filed beyond the time period prescribed by the statute, there is no discretion for authorities to extend the time limit. The case laws emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing claims and the limitations on the authority's discretion in such matters. Based on these precedents and the clear provisions of Section 11B, the Government rejected the revision application and upheld the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application and upheld the rejection of the rebate claim filed by M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd. as time-barred, in accordance with the statutory provisions and relevant case laws.