2022 (12) TMI 772 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - time limitation - Relevant Date - Petitioner s claim has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation - section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The statutory provision governing the period of limitation would be the subject matter of discussion. Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act states that any person claiming refund of any duty of excise and interest may make an application for refund before expiry of one year from the relevant date. The period of limitation of one year commences from the Relevant Date. The relevant date as defined in Explanation (B) to this provision, states that for the purposes of goods exported by sea, is the date on which ship in which goods are loaded, leaves India. Thereafter the relevant date for other contingencies has been enumerated and Clause (f), the residuary clause states that in any other case, the relevant date will be the date of payment of duty. The Petitioner has admittedly paid excise duty after the alleged modification. The Petitioner has made specific assertion based on factual position in this petition. If a contingency arose which made it impossible to the Petitioner to fall within a particular classification regarding the period of limitation and the same provision provides for a residuary clause prescribing different starting point of limitation in other cases, then an opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioner to establish this factual position. The question, therefore, would arise whether the factual assertions made by the Petitioner are correct and, even if they are correct, whether the Petitioner can still take benefit of the residuary Clause (f) or whether the case falls under Clause (a) of the Explanation (B). In light of this position, we are inclined to accede to the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to give opportunity to the Petitioner to demonstrate this position before the authorities. Since this factual adjudication on the above aspect has not been done and the case of the Petitioner as it is before us was not considered by the authorities, we pass the following order - Appeal allowed.

Issues involved:
Challenge to order under section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 | Interpretation of section 11B for rebate claims | Factual assertion of modification in agreement affecting rebate claims | Rejection of claims on the ground of limitation | Opportunity to establish factual position for claiming rebate | Quashing of impugned orders and restoration of appeals

Analysis:

1. Challenge to order under section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Petitioner contested the order dated 14 October 2011 by the Revisional Authority under section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which partly granted and partly rejected the supplementary rebate claim made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's challenge was based on the rejection of the claims, leading to the appeal and subsequent revision.

2. Interpretation of section 11B for rebate claims:
The central issue revolved around the interpretation of section 11B of the Central Excise Act concerning the limitation period for claiming a refund of excise duty. The Petitioner argued that the modification in the agreement post-export made it impossible to claim the rebate within one year from the date of shipment, invoking Clause (f) of Explanation (B) for the relevant date of payment of duty.

3. Factual assertion of modification in agreement affecting rebate claims:
The Petitioner claimed that the modification in the agreement altered the pricing pattern for supplies made before 31 March 2007, leading to duty payments in August and September 2007. This modification was cited as the reason for the delay in filing supplementary rebate claims, challenging the authorities' decision based on the limitation period.

4. Rejection of claims on the ground of limitation:
The Respondent Authorities rejected the Petitioner's supplementary rebate claims as time-barred, citing the limitation period of one year from the date when the goods left India. The authorities concluded that the claims were beyond the stipulated timeframe, leading to the rejection based on the statutory provision of section 11B(1) of the Act.

5. Opportunity to establish factual position for claiming rebate:
The High Court acknowledged the need for factual adjudication regarding the modification in the agreement and its impact on the Petitioner's ability to claim rebates within the limitation period. The Court granted the Petitioner an opportunity to present evidence supporting their position before the authorities for a proper assessment of the factual assertions made.

6. Quashing of impugned orders and restoration of appeals:
In light of the need for further factual examination, the High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 20 October 2011 and 8 January 2010, passed by the Revisional and Appellate Authorities respectively. The Court restored the appeals to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration based on the additional evidence to be presented by the Petitioner.

This detailed analysis outlines the key legal issues, factual contentions, and the High Court's decision to provide the Petitioner with an opportunity to substantiate their claims, leading to the quashing of previous orders and the restoration of appeals for further review.

← Previous Next →