The court affirmed that rebate claims under the Central Excise Act must be filed within one year, with no allowance for extensions based on delays in document receipt.

ORDER

1. These two writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner herein for assailing the common order dated 01.03.2021 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 dated 10.10.2017 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.

2. Learned counsel Shri Vivek Firoda representing the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Central Excise vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 321 ELT

2. JSL Lifestyle Limited vs. Union of India, (2015) 326 ELT 265

3. Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2019) 368 ELT 865

4. Gravita India Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2017) 2 RLW 1369.

and urged 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. 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. Specific averment was made to explain the delay that the customs authorities did not release the relevant documents i.e. ARE-one form, duplicate copy, excise invoice, transporter copy along with EP copy of the shipping bill till August, 2014. These documents were received by the petitioner from the merchant exporter as late as on 29.09.2014 and within three days of receiving the same, the petitioner filed the rebate claim applications. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the applications for refund should not have been dismissed on the hyper technical ground of delay and as being time barred.

3. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Kuldeep Vaishnav representing the department, has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sansera Engineering Limited. vs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru decided on 29.11.2022 and urged that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide this judgment overruled all the judgments relied upon by the petitioner's counsel. Hence, the petitioner's writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

4. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and the other material placed on record.

5. We are of the firm view that the plea raised by the petitioner offering justification to the delay in filing of the claim applications is absolutely far-fetched and unsubstantiated. It may be noted 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. Plea advanced by the petitioner's counsel that his client was genuinely and bonafidely prevented from filing the refund applications as the relevant documents were provided to him after delay is of no avail because firstly, the petitioner's counsel has failed to demonstrate by any satisfactory evidence that the claim for rebate could not have been filed without procuring such documents. There is no compulsion in law that the claim must be accompanied with the documents referred to supra. Furthermore, there is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that as a matter of fact, these documents were provide