Judgment:
1. Both these appeals arise from a single Order-in-Appeal No. 90/98 dated 5.8.1998 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding claim of rebate available under Rule 12 and 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has confirmed the Order-in-Original dated 27.8.1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the two claims as such two appeals have been filed, though arising from a single Order-in-Appeal.
2. Preliminary objection was raised by learned DR stating that the issue pertaining to Rebate under Rule 12 does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of proviso (b) to Section 35B of Act, which states as follows: Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in Clause (b) if such order relates to- (b) a rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India.
3. Learned Advocate submits that there was an occasion for the Delhi Bench to deal with a similar matter in the case of Siddhartha Tubes Ltd. v. CCE vide final order No. 1466/99A. He produces a computer print out of the said order.
4. Learned DR submits that the Delhi Bench was not apprising of the proviso (b) to Section 35B of the Act and hence it cannot be a precedent.
5. On a careful consideration of these submissions, I notice that the aspect pertaining to grant of rebate cannot be agitated before the Tribunal in terms of proviso (b) to Section 35B of the Act, which is extracted above. The appellants are required to file the claim before the appropriate authority and they shall be eligible to do so and the said authority shall consider their application for condonation on the grounds of having filed before the wrong authority i.e. Tribunal. The appeals are rejected for want of jurisdiction.