TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides. The arguments before us were confined to the question of time bar and the merits of the appeal were not gone into. The appellants pressed for the following points only :- (1) Rule 11, which lays down the period of limitation for refund claims, was a delegated legislation. Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under which the rule was framed, did not authorise making of a rule on the period of limitation. The rule was, therefore, in excess of jurisdiction and rule-making power of the Central Government. The limitation was a very vital matter since it cut into the right of refund of the assessee. The Parliament alone was, therefore, competent to legislate on the period of limitation and such period ought to have been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Houses of Parliament. Under Section 38, the Parliament had the power to make modifications in the Rules or to declare that the Rules would be of no effect. The rules laid before the Parliament, in respect of which the Parliament made no amendment or declaration as aforesaid, were deemed to have been approved by the Parliament. They were, therefore, no less effective than the provisions of the Act itself. (2) The authorities constituted under the Act were bound by the limitation provided for in the statute [reliance on 1985 E.C.R. 289(S.C.) - Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs]. (3) The provisions of the Limitation Act could not be invoked before the aforesaid authorities [reliance on 1985 (22) E.L.T. 327 (S.C.) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legated to it under the Act become part and parcel of the Act itself. It is also well known that the Central Excises Act was a bare skeleton and it left the manner of collection of duty to be prescribed by the Rules framed by the Central Government. The assessee s right to refund itself was under the Rules only (Rule 11) till the Rule was substituted by Section 11B of the Act on 17-11-1980. The appellants admitted before us that no Court had declared Rule 11, or any part of it, as ultra vires. In any case, this Tribunal is hardly the forum where an argument could be advanced to say that the Rule should be ignored as being in excess of jurisdiction and rule-making power of the Central Government. This Tribunal can proceed to deal with the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
