9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Appellant. Shri P. Mahadevan, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order]. The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the denial of rebate of the excise duty already paid, is before this Court. 2. The petitioner exported Medimix Ayurvedic Toilet Soaps during the period 21-4-2006 to 26-10-2006. The excise duty was already paid by the manufacturer and the petitioner only sought for rebate of the said excise duty as the petitioner was a Merchant Exporter of the said goods. The petitioner made an application vide Form C dated 17-6-2008 to the tune of Rs. 28,26,974/- under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for rebate of the duty paid on the said exported goods, before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. After rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 would be applicable to any action taken under Rule 57(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Supreme Court categorically held that the time limit prescribed under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules alone is applicable and the said rule is not subject to Section 11A of the Act. Similarly Section 11-B is not applicable and only Rule 18 alone is applicable. Therefore, he seeks for setting aside the order dated 30-7-2010 and prays for rebate. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P. Mahadevan, Standing counsel for Customs and Central Excise Department would submit that when the statute prescribes the time limit under Section 11B of Central Excise and Salt Act, the Notification issued under the Act and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or supplied to a foreign going aircraft. 7. As per Rule 18 rebate of duty paid on excisable goods would be as per the notification issued under Rule 18. The Notification No. 19 of 2004 dated 6-9-2004 prescribes conditions, limits and procedures and other details elaborately. Clause 2d of the notification deals with rebate claim, which is extracted as follows :- d. the rebate claim by filing electronic declaration shall be allowed from such place of export and such date, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; The Notification No. 41/94 dated 12-9-1994 which was the previous notification in respect of the rebate duty for the earlier periods gives the details about the procedures. In the earlier Notification No. 41 of 1994 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944 for the recovery from the manufacturer. The manufacturer took a defence that the recovery could be made under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act within 6 months and not under Rule 57-I and that the claim of the department was beyond 6 months, the amount could not be recovered. The Supreme Court elaborately dealt with the matter and held that Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 would have no application to any action taken under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise and Salt Rules, 1944 and Rule 57-I is not in any manner subject to Section 11A of the Act. The above judgment would make it clear that Rule will act independently and any action taken under the rule to be considered independently. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
