2021 (7) TMI 1252 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate Claim - rejection on the ground that the application seeking rebate was not filed within the time prescribed - exports effected by the appellant during August 2015 to March 2016 - section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT - A reading of Section 11B of the Act makes it explicitly clear that claim for refund of duty of excise shall be made before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act was earlier six months which was later on amended on 12.05.2000 by Section 101 of the Finance Act, 2000. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules and the Notification dated 06.09.2004 did not prescribe any time for making any claim for refund as Section 11B of the Act already mandated that such application shall be filed within one year. Section 11-B of the Act being 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the rebate claims were filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Applicability of the amendment introduced by Notification No. 18/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016 to rebate claims for exports made prior to the amendment.
3. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the Notifications issued thereunder.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Time Limit for Rebate Claims:
The primary issue revolves around whether the rebate claims were filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11B mandates that any claim for refund of duty must be made before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The appellant's claims for rebate were rejected by the respondent on the grounds that they were time-barred as per Section 11B. The learned Single Judge upheld this view, asserting that the claims were made beyond the statutory period of one year. The appellate court agreed with this interpretation, noting that Section 11B is a substantive provision that overrides any conflicting rules or notifications, including Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. Applicability of Notification No. 18/2016-C.E. (N.T.):
The appellant argued that the amendment introduced by Notification No. 18/2016-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016, which specified a one-year time limit for filing rebate claims, should not apply to exports made prior to the amendment. The appellant contended that their rebate claims should be governed by the earlier Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 06.09.2004, which did not prescribe any time limit. However, the court held that Section 11B of the Act already mandated a one-year time limit for rebate claims, and the 2016 notification was merely clarificatory. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. UTTAM STEEL LTD., which reinforced that Section 11B's time limit applies to all rebate claims, irrespective of subsequent notifications.

3. Interpretation of Rule 18 and Related Notifications:
The appellant also contended that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the associated notifications constituted a complete code for granting rebates and should be interpreted independently of Section 11B. They argued that the rebate claims should be processed based on the provisions of the Notification dated 06.09.2004, which did not specify a time limit. The court, however, emphasized that Section 11B's statutory time limit takes precedence over Rule 18 and any conflicting notifications. The court noted that the amendment introduced by the 2016 notification was a reiteration of the existing legal requirement under Section 11B and did not introduce a new time limit.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's rebate claims were time-barred as they were filed beyond the one-year period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, dismissing the appeals on the grounds that there was no justification to deviate from the statutory time limit. The court also clarified that the 2016 notification did not alter the existing legal framework but merely reiterated the time limit already established by Section 11B. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed for lack of merit.