SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Sansera Engineering Limited - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8717 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2022
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11B – Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Rule 18 – Claim for rebate – Bar of limitation – Section 11B of Act shall be applicable with respect to claim for rebate of duty also – Application for rebate of duty shall be governed by Section 11B of Act and shall have to be made before expiry of one year from “relevant date” and in such form and manner as may be prescribed – Merely because in Rule 18 of 2002 Rules, which is an enabling provision for grant of rebate of duty, there is no reference to Section 11B of Act and/or in notification dated 6.9.2004 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18, there is no reference to applicability of Section 11B of Act, it cannot be said that provision contained in parent statute (Section 11B of the Act) shall not be applicable – Subordinate legislation cannot override parent statute – Subordinate legislation can always be in aid of the parent statute – As respective claims were beyond period of limitation of one year from relevant date, same are rightly rejected by appropriate authority and same are rightly confirmed by High Court. (Paras 9, 10 and 15)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 249/2020, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, upholding the order passed by the respondent rejecting the claim of the appellant for rebate on the ground that the claim was barred by time/limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the original writ petitioner/appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That the appellant herein – M/s Sansera Engineering Limited is a manufacturer of excisable goods. It exported goods on payment of excise duty between August, 2015 and October, 2015 and filed claims for rebate of duty paid on the goods exported on 10.02.2017 to the tune of Rs. 29,47,996/-and Rs. 42,27,928/-under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2002 Rules’) in respect of these exports. Subsequently on 14.02.2017, for the period October 2015 to March 2016, the appellant claimed rebate of Rs. 1,47,27,766/-.
2.1 The original authority rejected the above-mentioned rebate claims as barred by time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act vide three different Orders-in-Original. Aggrieved by the respective Orders-in-Original rejected the respective claims as barred by time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act, the appellant preferred writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 22.11.2019 dismissed the said writ petitions holding that the claims for rebate were made beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order in Writ Appeal No. 249/2020. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has made the following contentions in support of his submission that for rebate claim, the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable:
i) that the grant of rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid as provided under Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules is different than that of refund of duty entitled under Section 11B of the Act;
ii) that the rebate of duty is on export of the goods and is in the form of an incentive and on furnishing the form R within six months from the date of export, the exporter is entitled to the rebate of duty on fulfilling the relevant conditions as mentioned in the notification No. 19/2004 dated 6.9.2004;
iii) that neither Rule 18 nor notification dated 6.9.2004 specifically provided for the applicability of Section 11B of the Act for the period between 2000 to 2016;
iv) that by notification dated 1.3.2016, notification dated 6.9.2004 came to be amended under heading “(3) Procedures” and the words “before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B of the Act” came to be inserted. Therefore, a conscious decision was taken that for the period between 2000 to 2016, the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable;
v) that in absence of specific provision either in Rule 18 or in notification dated 6.9.2004 which came to be issued in exercise of powers under Section 37 of the Act specifically making Section 11B of the Act applicable which provides for the limitation to make an application within six months/one year applicable, subject to fulfilling of all conditions mentioned in the notification dated 6.9.2004, the exporter shall be entitled to the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods exported;
vi) that as per notification dated
Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Raghuvar (India) Limited
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. v. Union of India
Gravita India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2016 (334) ELT 321 (Rajasthan) (Paragraphs 12
Union of India v. Uttam Steel Limited
Cosmonaut Chemicals v. Union of India
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Hyundai Motors India Limited v. Department of Revenue
Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India, 2012 (282) ELT 481 (Bombay) (paras 10
Application for rebate of duty shall be governed by Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 and shall have to be made before expiry of one year from “relevant date” and in such form and manner as may....
Rebate of duty - Payment of Central Excise duty - Procedural requirement cannot defeat substantial right of party as in absence of shipping bill, insistence on shipment certificate was inevitable - T....
Claims for refund of excise duty under Section 11B must be filed within one year; reversal of CENVAT credit to obtain exemption does not constitute a mistake of law, thus refund claims beyond this li....
The limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act can be adjusted based on the time spent before an incorrect authority.
Undisposed protest against duty payment exempts refund claim from S.11B limitation, independent of third-party judgments.
The court emphasized the need to consider the rebate claim under Rule 18 of CE Rules and the petitioner's claim for rebate on duty paid on excisable material used for export.
The judgment established the need for strict compliance with exemption or concession provisions and highlighted the applicability of central excise duty on waste/scraps.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.