ORDER
V.P. Gulati, Member (T)
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The appellant’s refund claim has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The appellant cleared the goods valued at Rs. 19,60,000 on payment of duty and these goods after clearance were exported. The appellant’s prayer was that the value of these goods should be abated from the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of Notification 175/86 for reckoning the aggregate limit for duty free clearance of Rs. 75 lakhs and refund allowed to them. The learned lower appellate authority, while rejecting the appellant’s plea, has held as under.
“Here the appellants had cleared the goods on payment of duty. It was not for export. Accordingly the relevant date is the date of payment of duty. By applying this yardstick, the appellant’s refund claim is hit by limitation. The order of the Asst. Collector is correct. The appeal is accordingly rejected. It is also seen that the Asst. Collector had held that even after allowing the deduction of the value of Rs. 19,60,000 the appellants had already crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs on 28-9-1989 and the claim for refund was received on 23-8-1990.”
2. The learned Advocate for the appellant pleaded that the appellant had cleared certain qnantities of the goods on payment of duty under AR-4A procedure for export under claim for rebate to a trader in Bombay and they did not take these claims into consideration while reckoning the aggregate value for exemption purposes and filed a refund claim. The learned lower authority has held that the refund claim has been filed beyond the period of six months prescribed under Section 11B from the date of payment of duty. He pleaded that the limitation should have been reckoned with reference to the date on which rebate was allowed in respect of those goods as the appellant could file the refund claim only after the goods had been exported. He further pleaded for allowing the appellant’s plea.
3. The learned DR for the Department pleaded that under Notification 175/86 there is no provision for abatement from aggregate value of the clearances in respect of the goods which were cleared under AR-4A procedure on payment of duty and in any case the refund claim in respect of any clearance should have been filed within the 6 months period from the date of payment of duty.
4. We have given a careful thought to the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that the appellant is availing the benefit of Notification 175/86 and after they crossed the exemption limit of Rs. 75 lakhs, as per the Notification, they started clearing the goods on payment of full rate of duty. Part of the goods manufactured by the appellant were cleared under AR-4A procedure and which were exported and rebate in respect of the same was obtained by the exporter later. It is pertinent to note that so far as the appellant is concerned, they are not the exporters and once they had cleared the goods on payment of duty so far as they are concerned, the legal event of clearance of goods acquired finality. These goods at the relevant time were charged to duty correctly. In case somebody else exported the goods, he got the corresponding benefit in respect of the same by way of rebate and no benefit in respect of the same export can accrue to the appellant in terms of Notification 175/86. The learned Advocate could not show us from the reading of the Notification that in the case of the goods as cleared from the appellant’s factory any benefit could accrue to them by way of abatement of the value for reckoning the value of the exempted goods cleared from the factory. In any case if the appellant wanted to claim any refund, the refund claims should have been filed for the purpose within the period of 6 months. Admittedly, in the present case the refund has been claimed in respect of goods which suffered duty after the limit of Rs. 75 lakhs had been exceeded beyond the period of 6 months prior to the filing of the refund claim. Under Section 11B there is no provision under which the relevant date could be reckoned with reference to the date on which the rebate claim was made by the person to whom the goods had been sold. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appeal and dismiss the same.