9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 32 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - incomplete rebate claims - documents like ARE-1 original/duplicate copies were filed after expiry of one year - Held that - original refund/rebate claim filed initially within prescribed time limit laid down in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the claim resubmitted along with some required documents/prescribed format on direction of department after the said time limit cannot be held time barred as the time limit should be computed from the date on which rebate claim was initially filed. - rebate claims cannot be treated as time barred since it was originally filed before department well within the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government is of considered view that case is required to be remanded back for denovo consideration, for deciding the case on merits. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues:
- Time limitation for filing rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rejection of rebate claims by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeal) - Grounds for revision application filed with the Central Government Issue 1: Time limitation for filing rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The case involved M/s Oleofine Organics India (Pvt.) Ltd. filing rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claims were initially filed within one year from the date of export of goods, but certain mandatory documents like ARE-1 original/duplicate copies were submitted after the one-year period. The original authority rejected the claims as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the applicant contended that all available documents were submitted initially, and the balance documents were procured from Customs late. The Central Government noted that various judgments supported the computation of the time limit from the date the rebate claim was initially filed, not from the date of resubmission after the time limit. Therefore, the rebate claims were not time-barred, and the case was remanded back for fresh consideration. Issue 2: Rejection of rebate claims by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeal) The original authority and Commissioner (Appeal) rejected the rebate claims of M/s Oleofine Organics India (Pvt.) Ltd. as time-barred due to the late submission of certain mandatory documents after the one-year period from the date of export of goods. The applicant argued that all available documents were submitted initially, and the delayed documents were procured from Customs. The Central Government, after reviewing the case records and submissions, found that the rebate claims were filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the rejection of the claims was set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration. Issue 3: Grounds for revision application filed with the Central Government M/s Oleofine Organics India (Pvt.) Ltd. filed a revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Central Government. The grounds for revision included the contention that the Commissioner (Appeal) did not consider various submissions and decisions made by the applicant, and the rejection of the rebate claims without issuing a Show Cause Notice violated the principles of Natural Justice. The applicant also argued that the rebate claims were initially filed within the time limit, and the delayed documents were beyond their control due to a Customs case. The Central Government, after thorough review, accepted the grounds raised by the applicant and remanded the case for fresh consideration. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of time limitation for filing rebate claims, the rejection of claims by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeal), and the grounds for the revision application filed with the Central Government. The Central Government's decision to remand the case for fresh consideration based on the findings regarding the initial filing of rebate claims within the prescribed time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, demonstrates a fair and just approach to the matter.
|
