9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 177 - HC - Central ExciseRebate claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - It is contended that no time limit has been prescribed for filing a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Rules and Section 11-B of the Act is not applicable to the Notification No.19/2004/CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 issued by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Rules - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the Notification No.41 of 1994/CE holding the field for about 10 years did prescribe the time limit for availing the refund of duty - The omission of the time limit in the subsequent Notification 19/2004 was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (4) TMI 118 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , it was held that the rebate of duty under Rule 18 should be as per the Notification issued by the Central Government. Notification No.19/2004 did not contain the prescription regarding limitation, a conscious decision taken by the Central Government. The reference made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the circular instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, is of little assistance to the petitioners since there is no estoppel against a statute. It is well settled principle that the claim for rebate can be made only under section 11-B and it is not open to the subordinate legislation to dispense with the requirements of Section 11-B. Hence, the notification dated 01.03.2016 bringing amendment to the Notification No.19/2004 inasmuch as the applicability of Section 11-B is only clarificatory - It is not in dispute that the claims for rebate in the present cases were made beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act. Any Notification issued under Rule 18 has to be in conformity with section 11-B of the Act. The decision of Original Authority rejecting the claim of rebate made by the petitioners as time barred applying Section 11-B of the Act to the Notification No.19 of 2004 cannot be faulted with - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to orders rejecting rebate claim as time-barred under Rule 18 and Section 11-B. Applicability of Section 11-B to Notification No.19/2004 under Rule 18. Interpretation of time limits for claiming rebate under Central Excise Rules. Validity of applying amended Notification retrospectively. Judicial precedents on rebate claims and time limitations. Impact of recent judgments on rebate claims under Section 11-B. Analysis: The petitioners challenged orders rejecting their rebate claims as time-barred under Rule 18 and Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act. They argued that no time limit was specified for filing rebate claims under Rule 18, and Section 11-B should not apply to Notification No.19/2004 issued by the Central Government. The petitioners claimed refunds for exports made before the 2016 amendment to the Notification, which introduced Section 11-B. They cited judgments from various High Courts supporting their position that rebate claims should adhere to conditions set by the Central Government, not Section 11-B. The Revenue contended that neither Rules nor Notifications could contradict the Act's provisions, emphasizing that Section 11-B specifies time limits for duty refunds. They argued that even if a Notification is silent on time limits, Section 11-B's limits should apply, as subordinate legislation cannot waive these requirements. The Revenue cited a Madras High Court decision supporting the application of Section 11-B to rebate claims under Notifications. The Court considered the primary challenge regarding Section 11-B's applicability to Notification No.19/2004 under Rule 18. It noted that the previous Notification (No.41/1994) had prescribed time limits, which were omitted in the subsequent Notification. The Court referenced the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, holding that rebate claims should align with Central Government-issued Notifications. Recent judgments, including one from the Apex Court, indicated that Section 11-B's time limits should govern rebate claims. The Court discussed the impact of recent judgments, particularly one involving Uttam Steels, which clarified the application of Section 11-B to rebate claims. It highlighted that all rebate claims must adhere to Section 11-B, with limited exceptions. The Court addressed inconsistencies in previous decisions and affirmed that Section 11-B's time limits were crucial for rebate claims. It emphasized that even if a Notification lacks specific time limits, Section 11-B's limits must be followed. Ultimately, the Court upheld the rejection of rebate claims as time-barred under Section 11-B, dismissing the writ petitions based on the arguments presented.
|
