2023 (2) TMI 662 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - time limitation - claims filed by the petitioner were rejected as being time barred as the same were preferred beyond the period of limitation of one year as stipulated under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - The plea raised by the petitioner offering justification to the delay in filing of the claim applications is absolutely far-fetched and unsubstantiated. It may be noted that the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder, do not contemplate extension of time beyond the period of limitation for entertaining applications for refund of duty and interest rebate claims, which have to be submitted within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. Furthermore, there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that as a matter of fact, these documents were provided to the petitioner on 29.09.2014 as claimed in the writ petitions. This argument involves purely disputed question of facts and hence, cannot be entertained in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon by this Court. There are no two views on the aspect that a time barred claim filed beyond one year for claiming rebate of duty or interest under Section 11-B of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be entertained as has been affirmatively held by Hon ble the Supreme Court in the case of SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, BENGALURU 2022 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT . The impugned orders dated 01.03.2021 and 10.10.2017 do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging rejection of rebate claims under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act as time-barred.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claims:
The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the rejection of rebate claims under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act. The Additional Secretary to the Government of India dismissed the revisions against the rejection of rebate claims, citing them as time-barred under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) also affirmed the rejection of the claim for refund of rebate by the petitioner. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of the rebate claims and the period of limitation stipulated under the Act.

2. Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Vivek Firoda, argued that they were genuinely prevented from filing the rebate claim applications within the prescribed period due to delays in receiving essential documents from the customs authorities. The delay in providing export clearance certificates and associated documents led to the delay in filing the rebate claim applications. The petitioner contended that the applications should not have been dismissed solely based on the delay, as they were filed promptly upon receiving the necessary documents.

3. Contentions of the Respondent:
On the contrary, counsel Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav representing the department relied on a judgment by the Supreme Court in a similar case and argued that all previous judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were overruled by the Supreme Court. The respondent contended that the petitioner's pleas should be dismissed based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a related matter.

4. Court's Decision:
The High Court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the submissions and orders, found the petitioner's justification for the delay in filing the claim applications unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized that the Central Excise Act does not provide for an extension of the time limit for refund claims beyond the stipulated one year. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the delay in filing was solely due to the delayed receipt of documents. Moreover, the Court highlighted that the judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were overruled by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the strict adherence to the statutory time limits for refund claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the rejection of the rebate claims as time-barred and devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's rebate claims as time-barred under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims and dismissing the writ petitions for lack of merit.