9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 354 - CGOVT - Central ExciseCondonation of delay in filing revision application - Rejection of rebate/ rebate claim over and above FOB value - export of goods - ground of dis-allowance of appeal is that the assessable value was more than correct FOB value and therefore, there was excess payment of duty and excess rebate could not sanctioned by the adjudicating authority to the extent of said excess payment of ₹ 1,16,603/- - Held that - On perusal of the same, Government notes that the details contained therein does not categorically substantiate the claim of the applicant that the impugned Revision Application was delivered on 24.04.2012 to this office. Revision Application as per receipt stamp was received in the department on 01.05.2012 vide report Dy. No. 3415/12. As such, the applicant has failed to give any documentary evidences in support of their claim for the delay in filing of appeal. Under such circumstances, Government is of the considered opinion that onus to show cause for not filing application is on the applicant who has failed to show sufficient cause that prevented him from filing Revision Application within stipulated period of three months. The Revision Application has been made contrary to the provisions of Section 35EE (2) and is, therefore, liable for rejection. - Decided against the applicant.
Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The case involved a revision application filed by M/S Cadila Health Care Ltd. against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai, regarding a rebate claim. The original authority had sanctioned a rebate claim but rejected a portion of it. The applicant contended that the rejected amount was due to duty paid in excess of the FOB value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection based on the excess duty paid. The applicant then filed a revision application before the Central Government, citing various grounds, including entitlement to the entire duty rebate. The government reviewed the case records, submissions, and orders, noting the discrepancy in the rebate claim amount. The applicant also sought condonation of a 4-day delay in filing the revision application. The government first addressed the issue of timeliness in filing the Revision Application under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant provision stated that the application must be made within three months from the date of communication of the order. The Central Government could allow a further period of three months for sufficient cause. The government observed that the applicant filed the revision application 4 days beyond the initial three-month period, constituting a delay. The applicant attributed the delay to postal issues but failed to provide concrete evidence supporting this claim. Despite relying on a postal tracking report, the government found the evidence insufficient to justify the delay. Consequently, the government concluded that the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay, which was not adequately proven. As a result, the Revision Application was deemed time-barred and rejected without delving into the case's merits. In conclusion, the government rejected the revision application due to being time-barred, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing such applications.
|
