The Rajasthan High Court while considering a Writ Petition held that Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was not a proper appellate forum for dispute of Rebate Claim.
The Petitioner had procured raw materials at Nil rate duty under a Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 subject to the condition that the final products manufactured from such raw material would be exported. An explanation was inserted to the above notification to provide that the export of goods could be affected only under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules. It was also clarified that explanation inserted in Rule 19 would be effective from 26.6.2001.
A show cause notice was sent to the petitioner by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner to disallow the rebate claims to the petitioner on the ground that they had exported the goods under Rule 18. However, due to various representations, the CBEC in a circular clarified that the explanation in the notification shall be applicable prospectively i.e., from 2.6.2004, but not to the exports made after 2.6.2004.
The matter was reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner of Division and the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had exported the goods covered under relevant ARE-1 after 2.6.2004 only and the date of clearance from the factory under ARE-1 cannot be considered as the date of export. The petitioner’s appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were also rejected. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before CESTAT. However, the CESTAT dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as not maintainable on the ground that they did not have jurisdiction over their appeals as these relate to the rebate of Central Excise Duty. Revisions petitions filed were rejected by the revisional court. Thereafter a writ petition was filed before the High Court.
The bench comprising of Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala & Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas observed that the revision petition was filed against the orders after more than 8 years and the petitioner had made the request for condonation of huge delay on the ground that they availed the wrong forum to challenge the order. The Court opined that the petitioners knowingly appealed before the CESTAT and that the decision of the revisional court was right.
“In our opinion, it is not a fit case in which delay of 8 years can be condoned to entertain revision petition or to direct the revisional authority to decide the revision petition on merit because all the facts submitted before the revisional authority for condonation of delay were considered objectively and, thereafter, the revision petitions were dismissed.” observed the Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
