2016 (7) TMI 981 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing revision application - Availing duty drawback while getting rabte/ refund of duty paid on export of goods - Applicants submit that the exporters are eligible for Duty Drawback on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods if the same is covered in the Customs & Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995 at the rate prescribed in the drawback schedule. They are also eligible for Rebate of duty paid on the final products as these are the two sets of incentives covered under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002. - Held that - Government observes that the original authority sanctioned the rebate claims. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that as the applicant has availed drawback, allowing rebate would amount to double benefit. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department s appeal. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. The applicant has erred in its contention that as they had posted the application on the last day of the stipulated 3 months period, no condonation of delay is required. The applicant has also failed to give any documentary evidences to justify that there were sufficient cause, which prevented them from filing Revision Application in stipulated time in support of their claim for the delay in filing of the Revision Application. - Revision application rejected - Decided against the applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Applicability of Duty Drawback and Rebate of duty paid on final products simultaneously.
3. Condonation of delay in filing Revision Application.
4. Jurisdiction of Central Government in Revision Applications.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which were initially allowed. However, the department filed an appeal arguing that allowing the rebate would result in a double benefit as the applicant had already availed drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department's appeal, leading the applicant to file a Revision Application before the Central Government challenging the rejection of the rebate claim.

2. The applicant contended that they are eligible for both Duty Drawback on inputs used in export goods and Rebate of duty paid on final products under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002. They argued that the restriction in Duty Drawback only applies to the Customs component if cenvat credit on inputs was availed. The applicant cited legal provisions and previous judgments to support their claim for simultaneous benefits. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate these arguments, leading to the Revision Application.

3. The Central Government noted that the Revision Application was filed beyond the stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of the Order-in-Appeal. The applicant argued that the application was dispatched within three months, but the government emphasized that the application must be received within the timeframe as per the relevant legal provisions. The applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay, resulting in the rejection of the Revision Application on procedural grounds.

4. The Central Government, after careful review, rejected the Revision Application as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. The decision was based on the failure of the applicant to adhere to the prescribed timeline for filing the application, as mandated by Section 35EE (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rule 10(2) of the Central Excise (Appeal) Rules 2011. The onus was on the applicant to justify the delay, which was not adequately demonstrated, leading to the rejection of the Revision Application solely on procedural grounds.