By the Court:-

M/s Gravita India Ltd., petitioner herein, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. This company is engaged in manufacturing of lead and lead alloys falling under Chapter Heading 78.11, 78.04, 28.04 and 78.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act of 1985').

Petitioner is also exporting goods manufactured by them and such goods are cleared from the factory of the petitioner on payment of duty for export under rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, 'the Rules of 2002'). Petitioner removed the goods manufactured by them, which were cleared from the factory of petitioner on payment of duty of Rs.4,75,039/- under the cover of Invoice No.17 dated 10.07.2008 and the said goods were exported vide Shipping Bill No.6474467 dated 09.07.2008. Goods were allowed for export on 14.07.2008. Relevant documents were received in the first week of September, 2009, from Custom Authorities. After export of the said good and on receipt of the documents from custom authorities, the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004 C.E. (NT) dated 06.9.2004, as amended from time to time, filed a refund claim on 10.09.2009 for the rebate of duty paid by them on the export goods. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed a refund claim of Rs.4,918/-along with said rebate claim of Rs.4,70,121/-on the ground that it had paid said amount of duty on the post removal expenses of Rs.1,03,325/-, which was otherwise not payable.

The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-II, Jaipur, served a notice dated 13.11.2009 on the petitioner calling upon it to show cause as to why the aforesaid claim be not rejected in terms of the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Rules made thereunder on the reason mentioned above. Petitioner, in its reply to said notice, submitted that although the claim submitted was rejected, as being time barred by one year, but this delay was due to circumstances beyond control of the petitioner as the Customs Department at Nhava Sheva Port handed over the shipping documents after one year of export and the exception of claim filed beyond time limit of one year is available when delay is due to circumstances beyond control of the claimant or the delay is on account of lapse on the part of departmental officer. Petitioner, in support of his contention, relied on judgment of Gujarat High Court in Cosmonaut Chemicals Vs. Union of India – 2009 (233) E.L.T. 46 (Guj.). Petitioner also filed affidavit of its General Manager (Commercial) Shri Kishan Gopal Gupta, that after exportation of the consignment from the port of Export, the firm handed over copy of shopping bill, bill of lading and ARE-1 duly signed and endorsed evidencing exportation of the consignment in first week of September, 2009 and after receipt of the document rebate claim was filed in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-1, Jaipur on 10.09.2009. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide Order-in-Original dated 18.08.2010, rejected the claim of refund of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached the Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur, who also dismissed the appeal by order dated 02.02.2011. Petitioner thereagainst preferred revision application to the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Act of 1944, which too was rejected by respondent no.2 -the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. Hence this writ petition.

Shri Gunjan Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, has grossly erred in rejecting the rebate/refund claim of Rs.4,70,121/- of the petitioner vide order No.1771/12-Cx dated 24.12.2012, which was issued on 26.12.2012, on the ground of limitation. The case of the Revenue is that while the goods were exported