Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2022 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 49 - SC - Central ExciseRejection of rebate claim - Period of limitation when no reference is given in the relevant Rule or Notification - applicability of time/limitation prescribed u/s 11B - HELD THAT:- It is required to be noted that Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules has been enacted in exercise of rule making powers under Section 37(xvi) of the Act. Section 37(xxiii) of the Act also provides that the Central Government may make the rules specifying the form and manner in which application for refund shall be made under section 11B of the Act. In exercise of the aforesaid powers, Rule 18 has been made and notification dated 6.9.2004 has been issued. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 11B of the Act, an application has to be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, the application for rebate of duty has to be made in such form and manner as prescribed in notification dated 6.9.2004. However, that does not mean that period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable at all as contended on behalf of the appellant. Merely because there is no reference of Section 11B of the Act either in Rule 18 or in the notification dated 6.9.2004 on the applicability of Section 11B of the Act, it cannot be said that the parent statute – Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable at all, which otherwise as observed hereinabove shall be applicable with respect to rebate of duty claim. The issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the cases of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] and Uttam Steel Limited [2015 (5) TMI 214 - SUPREME COURT]. After taking into consideration Section 11B of the Act and the notification and procedure under Rule 12, it is specifically observed and held that rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India would be covered under Section 11B of the Act. After referring to the decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd., it is further observed in the case of Uttam Steel Limited that such claims for rebate can only be made under Section 11B within the period of limitation stated therefor. It is observed and held that while making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable. In the present case, as the respective claims were beyond the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date, the same are rightly rejected by the appropriate authority and the same are rightly confirmed by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
|