2016 (7) TMI 356 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate/ refund claim - export of goods - Jurisdiction - The said rebate claim was rejected by Assistant Commissioner(Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad on the ground that Maritime Commissioner Raigad, have no jurisdiction over the exports made from the ICD Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. - Held that - Government observes that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in terms of Notification 19/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 which provides the procedure for filing rebate, the claim of rebate shall be lodged with original copy of application to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse or as the case may be Maritime Commissioner. It is a fact on record that the goods were exported from ICD, Sabarmati and in such case the original authority i.e. Maritime Commissioner will have no jurisdiction. The applicant was pointed out regarding the discrepancy but they neither filed any reply nor withdrew their claim to file before the proper authority. As such, the claim has rightly been rejected as filed beyond jurisdiction by the original authority. - Revision application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Maritime Commissioner over rebate claim for exports made from ICD Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal by M/S. Unique Wire Industries, challenging the rejection of their rebate claim by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad. The claim was rejected on the grounds that the Maritime Commissioner, Raigad, had no jurisdiction over exports made from ICD Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. The applicant contended that they were not informed about the correct authority to file the claim and that they usually submitted applications to the same office. The case was transferred between different offices of the Commissioner of Central Excise during the appeal process.

The Government reviewed the case records, submissions, and previous orders. It was noted that the applicant exported goods from ICD Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, and filed the rebate claim with the Maritime Commissioner, Raigad, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Raigad. The applicant failed to respond to notices regarding the jurisdiction issue. The Government observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly interpreted the procedure for filing rebate claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E.(N.T.), stating that claims should be lodged with the appropriate authority based on the location of the factory or warehouse. As the goods were exported from ICD Sabarmati, the Maritime Commissioner had no jurisdiction.

The Government cited legal precedents to emphasize that benefits under notifications cannot be extended if procedures are not followed. They highlighted that notifications should be considered part of the statute and must be adhered to. Ultimately, the Government found no issues with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld the decision, rejecting the revision application.