IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd., ECC Division, TLT Work, Mylam Road, Sedarpet, Puducherry-605 111., Rep. by its Manager-Indirect Taxes, Mr. K. Pattabiraman ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Revisionary Authority and Additional Secretary to the GOI Office of the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India, 8th Floor, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

2. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Puducherry

3. The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Puducherry III Division, Puducherry Commissionerate, Puducherry ..Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records connected with Order No.323/2021-CX(SZ)/ASRA/Mumbai dated 24.09.2021, passed by the 1st respondent herein, and to quash the same, in so far as it upholds the orders of the lower authorities in rejecting the rebate claim filed by the petitioner herein and consequently direct the respondents herein to sanction the rebate claim or to re-credit the duty paid by the petitioner on the exported goods back into their Electronic credit ledger account maintained in terms of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Viswanathan For Respondent(s): Mr. A.P.Srinivas, Senior standing counsel

ORDER

The petitioner manufactured and exported galvanized transmission tower and parts of prefabricated steel structure. Goods were exported between October 2007 and December 2007 under 32 ARE-1 applications by paying duty. Such duty was paid by making a debit from the CENVAT credit account of the petitioner. The goods left India between 02.10.2007 and 15.12.2007. The rebate claim was made on 05.02.2009. By order dated 09.04.2009, the rebate claim was rejected. The order dated 09.04.2009 was carried in appeal. The appeal was rejected by order dated 18.03.2011. Thereafter, a revision application was filed and the same was rejected under impugned order dated

24.09.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on multiple grounds. The first ground of challenge is that the petitioner is a manufacturer and, therefore, entitled to export the goods under a bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (Central Excise Rules). Rules 18 and 19 are complementary and, consequently, notwithstanding the fact that duty was paid under Rule 18, the petitioner is entitled to relief under Rule 19.

3. The second ground is that the revenue is not entitled to collect duty in respect of export of goods and the collection and retention thereof is unlawful. In those circumstances, the limitation period prescribed in Rule 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (‘Central Excise Act’) is inapplicable.

4. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Sansera Engineering Ltd., v.

Deputy Commissioner LTU Bengaluru in 2022(382) ELT 921 SC (Sansera) did not take into consideration other relevant judgments, including the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd., v. Union of India, (1997)5 SCC 536 (Mafatlal), wherein the nine Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 11B is not applicable in relation to the excess duty collected during provisional assessment and revised downward during final assessment. Learned counsel clarifies that this position prevailed until 25.06.1999 when an amendment was effected.

5. By relying on the judgment in In re: Balakrishna Industries Ltd., 2020(372) ELT 737 (GOI), learned counsel submits that it was held therein that the amount collected as duty on exported goods does not partake the character of duty as per Rule 2(e) of Central Excise Rules. Hence, he contends that the retention of duty is unlawful and not subject to any period of limitation. In support of the contention that Rules 18 and 19 are complementary, learned counsel relies on t