SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(P&H) 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
S.J. VAZIFDAR, G.S. SANDHAWALIA, JJ.
JSL LIFESTYLE LIMITED (M/S) – Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 16018 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 04-08-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate

Headnote:

Rebate - Central Excise - 11-A, 11-B - The judgment discusses the petitioner's challenge to an order dismissing its appeal for rebate on the ground of limitation. The court refers to Sections 11-A and 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and a Supreme Court judgment to determine the applicability of the limitation period for claiming rebate. The court holds that the claim for refund is governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the notification issued thereunder, which does not prescribe a period of limitation for claiming rebate. The court quashes the impugned order and directs the processing of the rebate application in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order dismissing its appeal for rebate on the ground of limitation. The petitioner exported goods on payment of duty and filed the required forms within 48 hours, but other documents were filed more than a year later. The authorities rejected the claim for rebate as barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the claim for refund is governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the notification issued thereunder, which does not prescribe a period of limitation for claiming rebate. The impugned order was quashed, and the rebate application was directed to be processed in accordance with the law.

Issues: The main issue was whether the claim for rebate was barred by limitation under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim for refund is governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the notification issued thereunder, which does not prescribe a period of limitation for claiming rebate. The court also referred to a Supreme Court judgment to support its decision.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 26.05.2014 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was quashed and set aside, and the rebate application was directed to be processed and dealt with in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

S.J. Vazifdar, J.

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.5.2014 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissing its appeal on the ground that its claim for rebate is barred by limitation.

2. The petitioner exported certain goods on payment of duty during September, 2011. It filed the ARE-I Forms within 48 hours from the date of clearance of the goods. The other documents were, however, admittedly, filed more than a year thereafter. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim for rebate on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The appellate authority also dismissed the claim on the same ground.

3. The petitioner's case is that as per rules 18 and 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is entitled to export goods without payment of duty. The petitioner contends that an exporter has several options. The petitioner opted to pay duty on inputs and to export the goods on payment of duty and thereafter claimed a rebate of the duty paid in respect of the exported goods.

4. Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is relevant to this case. We will, however, be referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in which Section 11-A fell for consideration also on the point of limitation. It will be convenient, therefore, to set out here Sections 11-A and 11-B of the Central Excise Act in so far as they are relevant:

"11-A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.-(1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,-

(a) the Central Excise Officer shall, within one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty which has not been so levied or paid or which has been so short levied or shortpaid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice;

......... ........ .......... .........

(3) Where the Central Excise Officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2).

(4) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by the reason of-

(a) fraud; or

(b) collusion; or

(c) any wilful misstatement; or

(d) suppression of facts; or

(e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty,

by any person chargeable with the duty, the Central Excise Officer shall, within five years from the relevant date, serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 11-AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice.

(5) Where, during the course of any audit, investigation or verification, it is found that any duty has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded for the reason mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-section (4) but the details relating to the transactions are available in the specified record, then in such cases, the Central Excise Officer shall within a period of five years from the relevant date, serve a notice on the person chargeable with the duty requiring him t



































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top