1991 (4) TMI 154 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding time-barred rebate claims.
2. Jurisdictional authority for entertaining rebate claims for duty-paid goods exported to Bangladesh.
3. Application of proviso (1) to Rule 12 in granting rebate claims.
4. Consideration of case laws regarding territorial jurisdiction for refund claims.
5. Decision on allowing the revision application for rebate claims.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application by M/s. Universal Enterprises challenged the rejection of five rebate claims as time-barred under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11-B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection citing that the claims were not filed with the competent Assistant Collector as per Notification 197/62 and Section 11-B of the Act.

2. During the personal hearing, the applicant reiterated their arguments, emphasizing their regular practice of filing refund claims with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. However, a clarification issued under Board's letter specified that the jurisdictional Assistant Collector from where goods were cleared should entertain rebate claims for goods exported to Bangladesh by land routes.

3. The Government analyzed the case and noted that the jurisdictional Assistant Collector was in Mysore Division, not Calcutta, where the claims were initially submitted. The Government referred to proviso (1) to Rule 12, allowing relaxation of conditions for rebate claims if goods have been exported. They highlighted the need to distinguish between substantive statutory conditions and procedural matters for relaxation.

4. The Government considered previous case laws, such as Poulose & Maithen v. Collector of Central Excise and Prag Vanaspati Products v. Collector of Central Excise, emphasizing that a refund claim filed before an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction could still be valid if the claim was otherwise admissible.

5. Drawing a distinction from a previous Tribunal judgment, the Government observed that in the current case, there was a practice of filing rebate claims with Assistant Collector 'D' Division, Calcutta, and exports had indeed taken place. Therefore, the Government allowed the application, directing the Assistant Collector in Mysore to grant rebates if the claims were filed within the prescribed time with Assistant Collector 'D' Division, Calcutta and met all necessary requirements.