JUDGMENT :---The short question sought to be raised in this petition relates to an interpretation of section 11-B of the Central Excises Act, 1944 ("Act" for short) which came to be amended with effect from 12th May, 2002.

Factual Background

The factual background giving rise to the present petition is in narrow compass :

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting steel products including galvanized corrugated sheets to 120 countries. In respect of exports affected from time to time, the petitioners filed rebate claims for a rebate of central excise duty paid in respect of the exported goods.

3. The present petition is concerned with two shipments of goods which were exported in 1999 and in respect whereof the petitioners claimed rebate. The petitioners exported galvanized corrugated sheets under shipping bills dated 20th May, 1999 and 10th June, 1999 and filed refund claim along with supporting documents to substantiate their claim that subject goods were, in fact, manufactured in their factory.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise (Refund), Mumbai issued show cause notice dated 7th March, 2001 to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause why the rebate claims in question should not be rejected as they were filed after expiry of the stipulated period of six months from the date of shipment resulting in contravention of provisions of section 11-B of the Act. The petitioners replied to the said show cause notice vide their letter dated 29th March, 2001 contending that since export of goods in question was not disputed nor there was any dispute regarding realisation of foreign exchange, the rebate being incentive to the exporters, their claim may not be denied on ground of delay which was not intentional.

5. The petitioners in support of their submission also relied upon subsequent amendment to section 11-B of the Act; whereby a period of limitation was extended from six months to one year from the date of shipment, to contend that their claims are well within the extended period of limitation. The petitioners also submitted in their reply that had they delayed the submission of their claims by another two months (i.e. second half of May 2001), the claims would have been within limitation in view of extension of period for filing rebate claim.

6. The above contentions did not find favour with the adjudicating authority. With the result, delay in preferring claims was held to be fatal to the rebate claims. It came to be rejected holding that law of limitation had to be followed strictly and that the authorities under the Act did not have power to condone delay in cases of refund of rebate claim.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners moved an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) at Mumbai. The said Appellate Authority while appreciating substantive reasons allowed the appeal vide its order dated 15th February, 2002 holding that extended period of one year was available to the petitioners and that both the rebate claims were not time barred as they were filed well within one year from the date of exportation. In other words it was held that the operation of extended period was retrospective in nature and, therefore, it was applicable to the petitioners case.

8. Revenue not being satisfied with the above order preferred revision application as provided under Rule 9 of the Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 ("Rules, 2001" for short) before the Government of Indian on the ground that the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous and, that the extended period of one year was not available to the petitioners since at the material time the limitation in terms of section 11-B was only six months and that there was 39 and 18 days delay respectively; in respect of rebate claims. The revisional authority, however, vide its order dated 16th August, 2002 allowed the revision application holding that the extended perio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document