TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing the substantive provision, the same cannot yield to Rule 18 of the Rules or the Notification dated 06.09.2004. In the present case too the application filed by the appellant claiming rebate was beyond the period of one year. Consequently, the respondent was right in rejecting the claim of appellant on the ground that it was belated. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - WRIT APPEAL NO.249 OF 2020 (T-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.589 OF 2020 (EXCISE) - - - Dated:- 23-7-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY APPELLANT (BY SRI. JOSEPH PRABHAKAR FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR B., ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) JUDGMENT NATARAJ RANGASWAMY J., W.A. No.249/2020 is an intra court appeal filed under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the correctness of the Order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge Court in W.P. Nos.44309/2017, 44310/2017, 44311/2017. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has refused to entertain the claim for rebate under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 18 of the Rules, it had to be processed only in terms of the Notification dated 06.09.2004 and not under the Notification dated 01.03.2016. 6. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI V. DORCAS MARKET MAKERS PVT. LTD., reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 45 (Mad) which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and a Special Leave Petition was filed by the Department there against was dismissed. He also contended that the decision of the Madras High Court was followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of JSL LIFESTYLE LTD., V. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2015(326) ELT 265 (P H) as well as the Rajasthan High Court in the case of GRAVITA INDIA LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2016 (334) ELT 321(Raj). Though the learned counsel contended that a taxing statute has to be read prospectively, he did not pursue this argument. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the Department submitted that Section 11B of the Act is the repository provision in Act dealing with refund and prescribes a period of one year to make a claim for rebate and that the Notification dated 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to - (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (b) unspent advance deposits lying in balance in the applicant's account current maintained with the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise; (c) refund of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued, under this Act; (d) the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the manufacturer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty to any other person; (e) the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty borne by the buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, the Maritime Commissioner. (ii) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise shall compare the duplicate copy of application received from the officer of customs with the original copy received from the exporter and with the triplicate copy received from the Central Excise Officer and if satisfied that the claim is in order, he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part. 11. The Notification dated 06.09.2004 was amended by Notification dated 01.03.2016 which reads as follows: Rebate of duty on export to countries other than Nepal and Bhutan-Notification No. 19/2004 C.E. (N.T.), amended In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification number 19/2004- Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 6th September, 2004, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, published in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justification to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Hence, W.A. No.249/2020 lacks merit and is dismissed. 14. W.A. No. 589/2020 is filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.19788/2017. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim of the appellant for rebate of Central Excise on the ground that the same was barred by time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. 15. The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and had exported them during August 2015 to October 2015. The appellant claimed rebate of ₹ 1,37,23,479/- in terms of the Notification No.19/2004 dated 06.09.2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. The said application was filed on 30.11.2016. The appellant claimed that it had clearly indicated in all the six A.R.E.-1s that it had claimed rebate and the corresponding shipping bills contained a reference to six A.R.E.-1s. The appellant claimed that Notification No.19/2004 was amended by Notification No.18/2016 whereby time limit of one year for filing rebate claim was introduced with effect from 01.03.2016. The appellant claimed that si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
