2020 (3) TMI 374 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - rejection on the omission of petitioners to submit original documents amounting to an irregularity of procedure provided in Central Excise Rules, 2002 - sections 35C and 35EE of CEA - HELD THAT - Dictionary meaning of word annul is given as, to declare invalid. Court has perused impugned order. It is clear Central Government sat in appeal to confirm order in original, on setting aside appellate order. Inserted by amendment sub-section (1A) in section 35EE clearly requires the Commissioner to apply for revision. Revision is not appeal. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for claiming rebate under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Submission of original documents as per Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Judicial interpretation of the term "annul" in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Limitation period for claiming rebate under Central Excise Act, 1944:
The petitioners supplied aviation fuel to aircraft operating international flights out of Gaya Airport, qualifying as exports. They claimed rebate on these exports, but faced rejection due to two main points. Firstly, the limitation period for claiming rebate under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which restricts the period to one year from the relevant date. The petitioners argued that the initial application was timely, but a fresh application became necessary. Secondly, the petitioners failed to submit original documents as required by the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The revision order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, dated 6th July, 2012, set aside the appellate order and reinstated the original order. The court examined the issue of limitation, with the petitioners citing precedent from the High Court of Gujarat to support their case, while the revenue contended that the appellate order was rightly set aside.

Submission of original documents as per Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The petitioners challenged the revision order that set aside the appellate order and reinstated the original decision. The court deliberated on the interpretation of the term "annul" in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The revenue argued that the Central Government's power to "annul" or modify orders should be understood in conjunction with other sections, emphasizing that the Central Government can only annul or modify orders, not confirm or restore them. The impugned order declared the rebate claim as time-barred, leading to the restoration of the original order by the Government. The court analyzed the dictionary meaning of "annul" and concluded that the Central Government's action amounted to sitting in appeal to confirm the original order, rather than a revision as required by the amended sub-section in Section 35EE. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition succeeded.

Judicial interpretation of the term "annul" in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The court sought clarification on the meaning of the term "annul" in Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which provides for revision by the Central Government to annul or modify orders. The revenue contended that the term should be interpreted in light of other sections, highlighting the distinction between the powers of the Appellate Tribunal and the Central Government. The court examined the impugned order and determined that the Central Government's action effectively constituted an appeal to confirm the original order, rather than a true revision as mandated by the relevant sub-section. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was successful.