2019 (12) TMI 335 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate of Central Excise Duty - time limit for filing rebate claim, within one year of the date of their export - It is submitted that, Export Promotion (EP) copy of the Shipping Bills, which were required to be filed with the rebate claim, were not made available to it - section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT - Section 11B of the Act is clear and categorical. The Explanation thereto states, in unambiguous terms, that Section 11B would also apply to rebate claims. Necessarily, therefore, the rebate claim of the petitioner was required to be filed within one year of the export of the goods. In Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India 2012 (4) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the High Court of Bombay, speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) clearly held that the period of one year, stipulated in Section 11B of the Act, for preferring a claim of rebate, has necessarily to be complied with, as a mandatory requirement - this is agreed upon. The submission, vehemently urged by Mr. Sachdev cannot be agreed upon, that, the date of submission of the ARE-1, to the Customs Officer, ought to be treated as the date of filing of the rebate claim. ARE-1 expands to Application for Removal of Excisable Goods - The ARE-1 is, therefore, an application which accompanies the removal of the excisable goods, and its submission is necessarily anterior, in point of time, to the export of the goods. Indeed, this is apparent from Clauses 3(a) (vii), (xii), (xiv) and 3(b) of Notification 19/2004 CE (NT) (supra), which deal with the procedure for sealing of goods, examination thereof and presentation of rebate claim. Clearly, the submission of the ARE-1 is anterior to the filing of the rebate claim and the date of submission of the said application cannot, therefore, be treated as the date of filing of the rebate claim - Mr. Sachdev was unable to draw our attention to any statutory provision, or judicial authority, enabling the date of submission of the ARE-1 application to be treated as the date of filing of the rebate claim. Section 11(B)(1) of the Act read with the Explanation thereto, clearly requires any claim for rebate to be submitted within one year of export of the goods, whereagainst rebate is claimed. There is no provision which permits relaxation of this stipulated one year time limit - the concurrent view of all three authorities below i.e. the AC, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Revisionary Authority, that the rebate claim of the petitioner merited rejection, as it was barred by time, need not be disturbed. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing and setting aside of Order No.692/18 - CX, 10th December, 2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Rejection of rebate claim by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground of being time-barred.
3. Challenge of the rejection of rebate claim by the Revisionary Authority.
4. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Act regarding the time limit for filing rebate claims.
5. Consideration of technical fault leading to delay in filing rebate claim.

Issue 1: Quashing and setting aside of Order No.692/18 - CX:
The petitioner sought to quash Order No.692/18 - CX, dated 10th December, 2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which rejected the petitioner's rebate claim on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition.

Issue 2: Rejection of rebate claim on time-barred grounds:
The Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the petitioner's rebate claim, stating it was filed after the one-year time limit from the date of export of the goods. The rejection was based on the mandatory requirement under Section 11B of the Act, which necessitates rebate claims to be filed within one year of the export of goods.

Issue 3: Challenge of rejection by the Revisionary Authority:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the rebate claim by the Revisionary Authority, contending that the claim was not time-barred. The Revisionary Authority upheld the rejection, citing precedents like Union of India vs. Uttam Steel Ltd. and judgments from the Bombay and Madras High Courts.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 11B regarding time limit for rebate claims:
The High Court analyzed Section 11B of the Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the one-year time limit for filing rebate claims. The court referred to judgments like Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India, affirming the importance of complying with the stipulated time limit.

Issue 5: Consideration of technical fault leading to delay:
The petitioner argued that a technical fault at the respondent's end delayed the availability of necessary documents for filing the rebate claim within the one-year limit. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that statutory time limits in taxing statutes are strict and must be adhered to without exceptions.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred. The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory time limits for filing rebate claims, stating that no provision permits relaxation of the stipulated one-year time limit. The judgment reaffirmed the sacrosanct nature of periods of limitation in taxing statutes, citing precedents and statutory provisions to support its decision.