9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period from April 89 to March 90, as exports were effected and amounts of credit which could not be utilised, amounting to Rs. 3,85,169/-, were sought for and, refunded in cash to the applicant under Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it existed then. The recovery of these amounts was proposed to be made and is confirmed by the Learned Commissioner in the impugned order on the grounds - (i) They had given a certificate to the fact that no specific claim for Rebate of duty in respect of excisable materials used in the manufacture of the goods has been or will be made under the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1971 or under the name for Rebate Central Excise Rules, 1944. (ii) The final products were expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or otherwise, but they emphasized on one fact that the Show Cause Notice is barred by limitation as it has been issued beyond six months. Their argument that they had no relation with the Merchant Exporter except the Export business of the consignments under AR-4 application and that they were not knowing about the Duty Drawback claims claimed subsequently is not acceptable. This is the lone argument inasmuch as they have declared that no other Refund claims have been preferred in respect of excisable materials used in their final product for the partner Mansukhbhai has already stated in his statement dated 7-4-95 that Merchant Exporters have claimed Rebate from the concerned authorities. The Case Law cited in the defence reply not relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971. This declaration misguided the officer of Central Excise to sanction the Refund claim of the assessee. On account of this, the invocation of extended period is sustainable. 3. After hearing both sides and considering materials on record, I find, that Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 311 (S.C.) held. "13………..section 11A is not an omnibus provision which provide any period of limitation for all or any and every kind of action to be taken under the Act or the Rules but will be attracted only to cases where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded…………" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified in Chapter IX of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as modified, wherever applicable, by Rule 1730 of the said rules. 2. The claims for refund are submitted not more than once in any quarter in a calendar year. Provided that, notwithstanding anything stated above, the claims for such refund may be made for each calendar month where the average export clearance of dutiable goods in value terms if seventy per cent or more of the total clearances of dutiable goods in the preceding three months. 3. No refund shall be allowed in respect of final products exported to Nepal. 4. The manufacturer undertakes to refund to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, on demand being made, within six months of the date of paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
