2015 (4) TMI 115 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Transfer of rebate claim to proper authority - Request denied as time barred - Held that - there are catena of judgment wherein it has been held that time limit to be computed from the date on which refund / rebate claim was originally filed. High Court and CESTA Tribunal have held in precedent cases that original refund/rebate claim filed initially within prescribed time limit laid down in section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944 and the claim resubmitted along with some required documents/prescribed format on direction of department after the said time limit cannot be held time barred as the time limit should be computed from the date on which rebate claim was initially filed. - rebate claims cannot be treated as time barred since it was originally filed before department on 8.9.2019 which is well within the limit period of one year stipulated in section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944. Government is of considered view that case is required to be remanded back for denovo consideration for deciding the case on merits. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
- Time-barred rebate claim filed by the applicant
- Jurisdictional issue regarding filing of the claim
- Delay in finalizing the rebate claim
- Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claim
- Interpretation of time limit for rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944

Analysis:
1. Time-barred rebate claim filed by the applicant:
The applicant filed a rebate claim after exporting goods, which was received by the Maritime Commissioner after a significant delay. The claim was rejected as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant contended that the delay was due to the inter-Commissionerate transfer of claims and not their fault. The Government noted that the time limit should be computed from the date of the original filing, which was within the prescribed period. Citing various judgments, the Government held that the claim cannot be considered time-barred and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

2. Jurisdictional issue regarding filing of the claim:
The applicant initially filed the rebate claim with the wrong authority, but later requested the transfer to the correct authority. The Maritime Commissioner rejected the claim as time-barred based on the date of transfer. However, the Government emphasized that the date for computing the time limit should be the date of the original filing, which was within the stipulated period. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on its merits.

3. Delay in finalizing the rebate claim:
The applicant faced delays in the finalization of the rebate claim by the Maritime Commissioner, Raigad. Despite follow-ups and requests, the claim was not processed promptly. The Government acknowledged the delay caused by non-cooperation from the office of the Maritime Commissioner and considered it beyond the applicant's control. The circumstances were deemed reasonable for condoning the delay.

4. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claim:
The applicant submitted all required documents along with the rebate claim, including ARE-1 forms, export invoices, and packing slips. The documents were duly endorsed by Customs Authorities, confirming the export of goods. There was no allegation that the cleared goods were not exported, and the compliance with procedural requirements was established.

5. Interpretation of time limit for rebate claims under Section 11B:
The Government referred to various judgments and a specific case to highlight that the time limit for rebate claims should be calculated from the date of the original filing, not from any subsequent submissions or transfers. In this case, since the original filing was within the prescribed period, the claim could not be considered time-barred. The Government ordered a fresh consideration of the case, providing both parties with a reasonable opportunity for a hearing.

← Previous Next →