2016 (7) TMI 355 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - he rebate claim was partly rejected by the original authority on the ground that the assessable value was more than FOB value and rebate claim is admissible only to extent of duty payable on FOB value. - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this aspect of delay in detail and observed that the reason advanced by the applicant was not a sufficient cause which could have prevented the applicant from filing the appeal within sixty (60) days. Such detailed findings of the appellate authority have not been controverted in the grounds of Revision Application by any substantial documentary evidences or submission. As such, Government finds force in the observations of Commissioner (Appeals). - Revision application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim rejection on grounds of assessable value exceeding FOB value.
2. Appeal dismissal as time-barred by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Condonation of delay application.
4. Export rebate as a beneficial scheme.
5. Rejection of genuine rebate claim.
6. Appeal filing time limit under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
7. Sufficiency of cause for delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Revision Application was filed against the rejection of the rebate claim by the original authority due to the assessable value exceeding the FOB value. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the filing of the Revision Application before the Central Government.

2. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred, being filed 27 days beyond the stipulated 60-day period for filing an appeal. The applicant contested this dismissal, citing reasons for the delay and seeking condonation of the delay.

3. The applicant argued for the condonation of the delay, emphasizing the importance of the export rebate scheme as a beneficial initiative for exporters. They highlighted the challenges faced by exporters in a competitive international market and the reliance on employees for filing rebate claims, attributing the delay to oversight and employee error.

4. The applicant stressed the internationally accepted principle of relieving exported goods from duties to enhance competitiveness in the global market. They viewed the rejection of the rebate claim on technical grounds and the dismissal of the appeal as discouraging legitimate exports and causing unnecessary hurdles for genuine exporters.

5. The Central Government reviewed the case records, submissions, and relevant orders. It noted the rejection of the rebate claim and the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The Government emphasized the importance of the appeal filing time limit under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

6. The Government acknowledged the detailed consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the delay in filing the appeal. The Commissioner found the reasons provided by the applicant insufficient to warrant condonation of the delay, a decision supported by the lack of substantial evidence or submissions challenging this finding in the Revision Application.

7. Consequently, the Central Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The Government found no grounds to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal and disposed of the Revision Application accordingly, without delving into the merits of the case.