No Eligibility Certificate Needed for Excise Special Rebate: Gauhati HC Rejects Cent Ply’s Appeal as Rebate sought after Limitation Period [Read Order]

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal in relation to the denial of a special excise rebate under Notification No. 20/2007-CE dated 25 April 2007 due to expiry of the limitation period.

Cent Ply, the appellant, argued that it could not claim the rebate without first receiving an Eligibility Certificate from the tax authorities and that the delay in issuance of this certificate had caused its application to be time-barred.

The appellant, a new industrial unit manufacturing plywood, claimed that it could not apply for the rebate of 65% value addition for FY 2009-10 within the prescribed deadline of 30 September 2009 (extendable by one month) because the authorities issued its Eligibility Certificate only on 14 May 2010.

Mr. Ankit Kanodia, Advocate for the appellant;s counsel argued that without such a certificate, it was legally impossible to seek fixation of rebate, and the subsequent rejection of its application as time-barred was unjust. It relied on the principle of substantial compliance, contending that the delay was attributable to departmental inaction.

However, the revenue countered that the notification nowhere mandated an Eligibility Certificate as a precondition for claiming rebate, pointing out that the appellant was regularly filing monthly refund claims without waiting for such certification.

Therefore, the company could have independently applied for fixation of special rebate within the statutory period. The Commissioner and later the CESTAT had already rejected the claim as barred by limitation, emphasizing that the May 2010 letter relied on by the appellant was merely an intimation of eligibility, not a certificate under law.

The bench of Justices Micheal Zothankhuma and Ajan Moni Kalita upheld these findings, ruling that no provision of the notification required issuance of an Eligibility Certificate for seeking rebate.

Since Cent Ply failed to file its application by the statutory deadline, its later plea could not be entertained.

The Court held that the rebate claim was hit by limitation and there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the revenue or the CESTAT. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates