2017 (1) TMI 653 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - maintainability of appeal - Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - Whether the rebate claim is returned or rejected, however, it cannot be denied that the issue relates to rebate claims. Therefore, the proper authority to decide the issue, against the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is the forum prescribed under Section 35 EE of CEA, 1944, and not the Tribunal in view of Section first proviso to Section35B of CEA, 1944 - appeal not maintainable, dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection of rebate claim on the ground of time bar

Analysis:
1. Issue of Jurisdiction: The appeal was filed against the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to &8377; 17,81,396/- on the basis of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision of the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant argued that the rejection on the ground of time bar was legally untenable and that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the appeal on its merits.

2. Contentions of the Parties: The appellant's representative contended that since the rebate claim was not considered on its merits, the Tribunal had the authority to review and decide on the matter. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for Revenue argued that the issue of rebate claims falls under the jurisdiction of the Government of India as per the first proviso to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby ousting the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

3. Decision and Reasoning: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, agreed with the Authorized Representative for Revenue. It was noted that whether the rebate claim was returned or rejected, the issue at hand pertained to rebate claims, making it fall under the purview of the forum prescribed under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter due to the first proviso to Section 35B of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the appellant was granted the liberty to file the appeal before the appropriate forum. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Conclusion: The judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdictional issues in matters concerning rebate claims under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized the need for cases to be presented before the appropriate forum as prescribed by the relevant legal provisions, thus ensuring the proper adjudication of disputes related to such claims.