2018 (12) TMI 1799 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - time limitation - it is contended that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by holding the rebate claims within limitation period and by not taking into account the Explanations (B) (ec) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The Government does not have any doubt that respondent had originally filed the rebate claims in time in the months of March April 2011 and the same were substantially allowed earlier by the Assistant Commissioner and remaining amount was sanctioned subsequently by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 24-10-2011. Thus, the net effect of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 29-7-2011 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-10-2011 was that all rebate claims filed by the respondent in the months of March April 2011 were found admissible and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner was bound to sanction the rebate claims of ₹ 6,83,727/- soon after having received the Order-in-Appeal. But he not only failed in complying the Order-in-Appeal but also aggravated the whole matter by issuing the deficiency memo for rejection of their rebate claims on the ground that the respondent had filed rebate claims after more than one year and thereby the rebate claims were hit by time limitation. The Assistant Commissioner did not have any legal basis for rejection of the respondent s rebate claims for second time by ignoring the Order-in-Appeal and by invoking above mentioned Explanation in Section 11B which is not relevant in the present context. The rebate claims allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly related to rebate claims filed by the respondent well in time and the same could not be considered as having arisen out of the Commissioner (Appeals) s order as is envisaged in Explanation B (ec) in Section 11B. The refund claim covered under the Explanation are apparently those which were not claimed on the basis of existing evidences of excess payment of duty and covers only those claims where excess payment of duty is established subsequently by virtue of the order of the Court or any other appellate authority while settling dispute regarding classification of goods, valuation of the goods or rate of duty etc. for which the refund claim is filed by the claimant later on the basis of such Court s or appellate authority s order. But in the instant case the rebate of duty has not arisen due to any such situation and rebate of duties had been claimed on account of export of duty paid goods for which rebate claims had already been filed in time and the Commissioner (Appeals) had restored even the rejected claims. Hence, the respondent was not required to file the rebate claims for ₹ 6,83,627/- again after Commissioner (Appeals) had issued his order in 2011 and the same was sanctionable as per earlier Order-in-Appeal. The Government does not have any hesitation in saying that the Revision Application is frivolous and not maintainable - revision rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rebate claims within limitation period and application of Explanation B (ec) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the respondent's appeal and setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's decision to reject rebate claims. The main grounds for the revision were that the rebate claims were rejected within the limitation period and Explanation B (ec) to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not considered. A personal hearing was held where the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the grounds of revision. The respondent did not appear, indicating a lack of interest in a personal hearing.

Upon examination, it was found that the respondent had filed rebate claims in March and April 2011, with a portion rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the rejected claims, directing their sanction after document verification. Despite this, the Assistant Commissioner did not sanction the claims and issued a deficiency memo treating subsequent letters from the respondent as fresh rebate applications. The rejection was based on the claim being filed after a year from the Order-in-Appeal, citing Explanation B (ec) of Section 11B.

The Government noted that all rebate claims were originally filed in time, with the Assistant Commissioner bound to sanction them after the Order-in-Appeal. The rejection based on time limitation was deemed unjustified, as the respondent had not filed new claims post the Order-in-Appeal. The Assistant Commissioner's reliance on Explanation B (ec) was considered baseless, as the claims were not new and had been previously allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Government found the Revision Application frivolous and rejected it, upholding the Order-in-Appeal.

In conclusion, the Government found no fault in the Order-in-Appeal and dismissed the revision application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, emphasizing that the claims were originally filed within the limitation period and the application of Explanation B (ec) was unwarranted in this context.