The Rajasthan High Court dismissed refund application and observed that Central Excise Act and Rules do not Contemplate Extension of Time beyond the period of limitation.
The writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner, M/s Mehrul Industries (India), for assailing the order passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, whereby the revisions preferred by the petitioner against rejection of its rebate claims under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act were dismissed and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Central Goods and Service Tax(CESTAT), Jodhpur rejecting the claim for refund of rebate of the petitioner were affirmed.
The claims filed by the petitioner were rejected as being time barred as the same were preferred beyond the period of limitation of one year as stipulated under Section 11(B) of the Central Excise Act.
The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was bonafidely prevented from filing the rebate claim applications within the period of one year because the respondents herein released the export clearance certificates and associated documents to the petitioner with significant delay.
The Counsel further submitted that no sooner the export clearance certificates and documents were provided to the petitioner, the rebate claim applications came to be filed before competent authority without any further delay.
The Coram consisting of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that “The Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder, do not contemplate extension of time beyond the period of limitation for entertaining applications for refund of duty and interest rebate claims, which have to be submitted within a period of one year as stipulated under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act.”
“We are, therefore, least convinced by the contention advanced by the petitioner’s counsel Vivek Firoda that the petitioner’s applications for claim of refund should have been treated to be within time by extending the period of limitation beyond one year” the Court noted.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
