2015 (4) TMI 70 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - adjudicating authority partly rejected rebate claims totally amounting to ₹ 60744/- on the ground that FOB value is less than the value shown in the ARE-1's because of addition of International Freight and Insurance in the assessable value which is not allowed under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - applicant filed initially two appeals before appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), in time claiming interest on delayed payment of rebate claim. Applicant subsequently filed two more appeals against the same Order-in-Original pleading to grant partial rebate claim of ₹ 60741 which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - Held that - On perusal of records, Government observes that the first two appeals filed in time claiming interest were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Applicant had not challenged rejection of part rebate claim of ₹ 60741/- in these appeals. The another two appeal filed subsequently were time barred on the one hand and not legally maintainable, in view of first two appeals. The ignorance of law cannot be excuse for filing second set of appeals. As such two appeal filed subsequently were rightly dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals). - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Orders-in-Appeal No. US/357-360/RGD/2011
- Challenge to rejection of rebate claims
- Time-barred appeals and non-maintainability
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals
- Consideration of Cenvat credit in rebate claims

Analysis:
The revision applications were filed by M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. against the Orders-in-Appeal No. US/357-360/RGD/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Raigad, regarding Order-in Original No. 771/10-11 (Reg.), Raigad. The case involved the rejection of rebate claims amounting to Rs. 60744 due to the addition of International Freight and Insurance in the assessable value, which was not allowed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The rebate amount was limited to the duty on FOB value. The applicant initially filed two appeals claiming interest on delayed payment of rebate and later filed two more appeals for partial rebate claim, which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the first two appeals but dismissed the subsequent two as time-barred and non-maintainable.

The revision applications were filed on grounds of missing the claim for short payment of rebate, ignorance leading to delay in filing appeals, and seeking condonation of delay based on the principle that delay should be condoned when no advantage is gained by not filing within the prescribed limitation. The applicant argued that if rebate was sanctioned on a lower FOB value, the balance amount of Central Excise Duty on a higher assessable value should have been allowed as Cenvat credit. However, during the scheduled personal hearings, nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant.

The Government reviewed the case records and observed that the first two appeals claiming interest were allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without challenging the rejection of part rebate claim. The subsequent appeals were deemed time-barred and non-maintainable, as ignorance of the law could not excuse filing second set of appeals. Consequently, the Government upheld the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, finding no infirmity in them.