1991 (2) TMI 149 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of time limit for lodging a claim for rebate under Rule 12 Central Excise Rules when duty is paid under protest.
2. Applicability of the proviso in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act to rebate claims for exported goods.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment concerns the time limit for lodging a claim for rebate under Rule 12 Central Excise Rules when duty is paid under protest. The key issue is whether the period of six months specified in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act applies to rebate claims for exported goods where duty has been paid under protest. The judgment discusses the relevant notification, specifically Notification No. 197/66, which allows rebate of duty paid on excisable goods if exported within six months of clearance, subject to lodging a claim for rebate before the expiry of the period specified in Section 11B. The proviso in Section 11B exempts the limitation of six months where duty is paid under protest.

The Collector, in the impugned order-in-appeal, held that the proviso in Section 11B does not relax the time limit of six months for rebate claims on exported goods, emphasizing that the relaxation applies only to goods cleared for home consumption. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 11B, highlighting that the period of six months for refund applications does not apply to duty paid under protest. It examines the relationship between duty paid under protest and the right to claim rebate, emphasizing that if such payment is relevant to rebate claims, the proviso cannot be denied to exporters.

Furthermore, the judgment analyzes the scheme of the Acts and Rules to determine the relevance of duty paid under protest to rebate claims. It notes that the existing notification allows rebate of the whole excise duty but highlights that future notifications may specify only a part of the duty for rebate. The judgment concludes that duty paid under protest can impact the rebate available to the party once the protest is settled, especially in an export-oriented context, leading to the conclusion that no time limit applies for filing rebate claims on duty paid under protest.

Additionally, the judgment addresses the Collector's reliance on the rule of harmonious construction, noting that it is not applicable in this case as there is no repugnancy between provisions. Ultimately, the Government holds that the period of six months under Section 11B does not apply to rebate claims for goods exported when duty is paid under protest, providing consequential relief to the party involved.