9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Khopoli Division, Raigad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants had exported goods on payment of duty under claim of rebate and the rebate claims filed by them had been sanctioned and paid to the Applicants. Subsequently, in pursuance of a price escalation clause in the agreement with the customer, they revised the prices and paid differential duty on the increased price by issuing a supplementary invoices. They also filed supplementary rebate claims. The adjudicating authority held that the limitation period for sanction of rebate claim was to be computed from the date of export and accordingly found that in the first claim for Rs. 7,66,582/- an amount of Rs. 3,10,714/- was within the time limit and the remaining amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 Without prejudice to the above submission Applicants submit that at clause (A) under Explanation to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944, it has been provided that "refund" includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable material used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India. In the instant case since the claim of rebate has already been settled, in terms of Clause (B)(a) under the said Explanation to Section 11B of Central Excise, Act, 1944, on exporting the goods, the said clause is complied with and will not be applicable to the supplementary claim arising out of raising the supplementary invoices for additional consideration subsequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have granted the refund under clause B(f) under Explanation to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The said clause states that relevant date in any other case means the 'date of payment of duty'. The Applicants therefore submit that if the aforesaid clause is applicable to the said 3 invoices then it is applicable for all remaining invoices. 4.4 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in issuing the single common order for all the three appeals though the period involved was different and the facts were little different. In the other two appeals of Order-in-Original No. 12 and 14, the supplementary invoices were raised for the cylinder engraving charges and not for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held on 24-8-2011 was attended by Shri P.K. Shetty, Advocate, and Shri D.W. Deshpande, G.M. Indirect Tax on behalf of the Applicants, who reiterated grounds of Revision Application stressing therein that provisions of Section 11B(f) are applicable in this case matter. 6. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of the respondent and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. Government notes that in these case matters of exports adjudicating authority allowed the rebate claim of Rs. 3,10,714/- which was filed within stipulated time period of one year and rejected the remaining rebate claim of Rs. 4,55,868/-, Rs. 20,359/- and Rs. 23,908 which were filed after the lapse of stipulated period of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (B)(f) where relevant date is defined as "in any other case, the date of payment of duty" cannot be accepted. In view of above position, Government is of considered opinion that in case of said rebate claims the time limitation of one year is to be computed from date of export of goods as stipulated in Explanation (B)(a)(i) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore these rebate claims are rightly rejected as time barred by the lower authorities. 9. The following case law are cited for the proposition that time barred rebate claim cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected. 9.1 The Hon'ble CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai in the case of Precision Controls v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - 2004 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the claim is filed beyond time period prescribed by statute, then there is no discretion to any authority to extend the time limit. 9.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) that High Court under Writ jurisdiction cannot direct the custom authorities to ignore time limit prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 even though High Court itself may not be bound by the time limit of the said Section. In particular, the Custom authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or cut contrary to Section 27 of Customs Act. The ratio of this Apex Court judgment is squarely applicable to this case. Section 11B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
