9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revisional Authority that the excise duty though exempt was paid wrongly, surely its refund claim should be granted. Limitation for claiming rebate of duty under Section 11B is one year - refund claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act - To the extent the petitioner’s refund claim pertained to the period beyond one year from the relevant date, the same would not be maintainable. To the extent the claim is within the period of limitation, the Revisional Authority shall re-examine the issue - 12074 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2011 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri M.H. Patil with T.C. Nair and Paresh V. Sheth, for the Petitioner. Shri A.Y. Kogje, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been produced with the said refund claim. (iii) That no documentary evidence, viz. original invoice, ARE-1 show clearing of duty paid goods for export or intended for export was submitted. (iv) That no documentary evidence was submitted showing co-relation that the duty paid goods was exported by you. (v) that no proof of export from jurisdictional customs authorities was submitted. (vi) That no documentary evidence has been produced from the Air India authorities that the AIF supplied to the Flight No. AI-4114, AI-4116 and IC 735 where International Flights. 3. After hearing the petitioner, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on 12-2-08 holding that the petitioner had failed to establish complian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the relevant date. Remedy to claim refund of duty which is otherwise in law refundable therefore, comes with a period of limitation of one year. There is no indication in the said provision that such period could be extended by the competent authority on sufficient cause being shown. Secondly, we find that the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 had the occasion to deal with the question of delayed claim of refund of Customs and Central Excise. Per majority view, it was held that where refund claim is on the ground of the provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Act whereunder duty is levied is held to be unconstitutional, only in such cases suit or writ petition would be maintaina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, 1999 respectively. However, both the applications were made belatedly on 28th December 1999, as a result, the claims made by the petitioners were clearly time-barred. Section 11B was amended by Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 12th May 2000, wherein the limitation for applying for refund of any duty was enlarged from six months to one year . Although the amendment came into force with effect from 12th May, 2000, the question is whether that amendment will cover the past transactions so as to apply the extended period of limitation to the goods exported prior to 12th May 2000 ? 6. The case before the Bombay High Court in the case of Vidushi Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra) [2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.)] also arose in different factual bac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not convince us to accept the claim of the petitioner particularly in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra) and Kirloskar Pneumatic Company (supra). In view of the above discussion, we find that the authorities were justified in holding that the refund claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. We find no infirmity in the impugned orders. The petition is therefore, dismissed. 8. With respect to the claim which fell within the period of limitation which was rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirements, in the case of this very petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 12703 of 2011 [2012 (280) E.L.T. 507 (Guj.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stores for consumption on board an aircraft on foreign run, the products as remain on board an aircraft after completion of an internal flight but prior to its reversion to foreign run, the rebate for which shall be granted without production of documents evidencing the payment of duty thereon. The proper officer of Customs shall certify in the manner specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise the quantity of products left on board for determining the quantum of rebate therefor. Being a question of fact which would require examination of bulky materials, it would not be appropriate on our part to scan through such documents and to make our final conclusive remarks on the rival contentions. However, we are of the opinion that prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
