IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ (Tax) Petition No. 78 of 2018
Decided On : 03-07-2019
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35EE – Petition filed against the order dated in a revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – By those orders-in-original, the claims for rebate from duty were rejected, as time barred – Appeal – Held, Supreme Court had itself clarified that the rule of special law prevailing over the general law may not be ignored even if that special law be contained in the Rule i.e. a delegated legislation while the general law may be found contained in a principal legislation – Court not concerned in this case with any challenge to the inconsistency of a rule with any statutory provision in the Act – Matter is remitted to the original authority to pass necessary order – Writ petition is allowed. [Paras 38 to 41]
Facts of the case:
The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, in a revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). That revision had been filed against the order/s-in-appeal dated 16.12.2013 and 21.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata. Those appeals had arisen from the order(s)-in-original dated 3.9.2013, 16.9.2013 and 29.1.2014. By those orders-in-original, the claims for rebate from duty (by the petitioner on export of Camphor USP) were rejected, as time barred.
Findings of the case:
Supreme Court had itself clarified that the rule of special law prevailing over the general law may not be ignored even if that special law be contained in the Rule i.e. a delegated legislation while the general law may be found contained in a principal legislation – Court not concerned in this case with any challenge to the inconsistency of a rule with any statutory provision in the Act – Matter is remitted to the original authority to pass necessary order.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, in a revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). That revision had been filed against the order/s-in-appeal dated 16.12.2013 and 21.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata. Those appeals had arisen from the order(s)-in-original dated 3.9.2013, 16.9.2013 and 29.1.2014. By those orders-in-original, the claims for rebate from duty (by the petitioner on export of Camphor USP) were rejected, as time barred.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Camphor USP falling under Chapter sub-heading 29142120 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By Central Excise Notification No. 19/2004 dated 6.9.2004, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), in super session of earlier notifications, granted rebate on the whole of the duty paid on all excisable goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, when exported to any country, other than Nepal and Bhutan. The said rebate was made subject to the conditions, limitations and procedures specified in that notification. Rule 18 of the Rules read as under:
Explanation.--For the purposes of this rule, "export", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking goods out of India to a place outside India and includes shipment of goods as provision or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port or supplied to a foreign going aircraft."
3. The conditions and limitations for providing the rebate are contained in clause (2) of that notification. They read as below:
(a) that the excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty, directly from a factory or warehouse, except as otherwise permitted by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by a general or special order;
(b) the excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture or warehouse or within such extended period as the Commissioner of Central Excise may in any particular case allow;
(c) that the excisable goods supplied as ship's stores for consumption on board a vessel bound for any foreign port are in such quantities as the Commissioner of Customs at the port of shipment may consider reasonable;
(d) the rebate claim by filing electronic declaration shall be allowed from such place of export and such date, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf;
(e) that the market price of the excisable goods at the time of exportation is not less than the amount of rebate of duty claimed;
(f) that the amount of rebate of duty admissible is not less than five hundred rupees;
(g) that the rebate of duty paid on those excisable goods, export of which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force, shall not be made."
4. As to the presentation of claim for rebate to Central Excise, the procedure is prescribed under clause 3(b) and 3(c) of that notification. They read as under:
(i) Claim of the rebate of duty paid on all excisable goods shall be lodged alongwith original copy of the application to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having juris
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.