2015 (1) TMI 762 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Delay in submission of orginal and duplicate ARE-1 - Held that - Time limit to be computed from the date on which refund / rebate claim was originally filed. 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 which is well within the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Government is of considered view that the rebate claims initially filed within one year are to be considered filed in time and are to be sanctioned in accordance with law. AREs-1 pertain to August 2008, September 2008 and March 2009. However he rejected the substantial part of rebate claims as time barred by holding that original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 could be submitted only after stipulated one year and hence, the rebate claims are treated to be filed only after 1 year stipulated time period. As observed in para (8) above, once the initial rebate claims filed within 1 year of date of export, although without original/duplicate copies of AREs-1 the same is to be treated as filed on the date when it was initially filed and as such cannot be treated as time barred. Therefore, the rebate claim in question is required to be sanctioned to the applicant considering the same as filed within one year time limit. As per provisions of Section 11(BB) of the Central excise Act 1944, interest at applicable rate is required to be paid from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty. In these cases, since there has been delayed payment of refund/rebate beyond stipulated three months. Hence, interest of delayed payment of rebate may be allowed as per law, wherein rebate claims have been held admissible - Decided Partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claims on the grounds of non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1.
2. Rejection of rebate claims as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
3. Interest on delayed payment of rebate claims.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of rebate claims on the grounds of non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1:
The adjudicating authority initially rejected the rebate claims due to the non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1. The applicant argued that the necessary guidelines provided by the Revisionary Authority were not followed correctly. The Revisionary Authority had stated, "Rebate claim in not to be sanctioned in the absence of original & duplicate ARE-1 as the same is not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT)." However, the applicant contended that the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 were produced before the adjudicating authority, and thus, the rejection was not justified. The Government observed that the original authority rejected the claims on these grounds and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

2. Rejection of rebate claims as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act:
The adjudicating authority rejected several rebate claims as time-barred, asserting that the original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 were submitted only after one year from the date of export. The applicant argued that the initial filing of rebate claims within one year from the date of export should be considered timely, even if the original/duplicate copies of ARE-1 were submitted later. The Government noted multiple judgments supporting this view, where it was held that the time limit should be computed from the date the refund/rebate claim was initially filed. This was supported by cases such as CCE Delhi-I Vs. Aryan Export & Ind. 2005 (192) ELT 89 (DEL.) and others, where it was established that the initial filing date is crucial for determining the time limit. Consequently, the Government concluded that the rebate claims initially filed within one year should not be treated as time-barred and should be sanctioned accordingly.

3. Interest on delayed payment of rebate claims:
The applicant also sought interest on the delayed payment of rebate claims. The Government referred to Section 11(BB) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates interest at the applicable rate from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the receipt of the application until the date of refund. Given the delayed payment of refunds/rebates beyond the stipulated three months, the Government held that interest on the delayed payment of rebate should be allowed as per law, where the rebate claims have been deemed admissible.

Conclusion:
The Government modified the impugned orders to the extent discussed above and partially allowed the revision applications. The rebate claims initially filed within one year were to be considered timely and sanctioned accordingly, and interest on delayed payments was to be provided as per the legal provisions. The revision applications were disposed of in these terms.