9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner 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 receipt of said application, a show cause notice dated 24-6-2008 was issued and a reply was sent by the petitioner in respect of the said show cause notice. After adjudication, the second respondent rejected the rebate claim on 21-2-2008 and the same was confirmed by the first respondent by an order-in-appeal No. 8/2010 (M-IV), dated 30-7-2010. The said order passed by the first respondent is under challenge before this Court. 3. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting 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 the Rules cannot be construed independently. He would further submit that when there is a conflict, the statute alone will prevail over the rules. If an application is filed beyond one year time as prescribed under Section 11-B of the Act, the same shall be rejected and that was done by the authorities. Therefore, no interference is called for. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute as reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claration 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 clause (iv), it has been specifically stated that the claim for rebate of duty has to be made within time limit as specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 whereas, no such condition has been prescribed in the present Notification No. 19 of 2004. 8. A comparison of earlier Notification No. 41/94 dated 12-9-1994 and Notification No. 19/2004 dated 6-9-2004, shows that an apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Therefore, Rule 18-B is not subject to Section 11A of the Act. In this case, the claim is with regard to the rebate of the excise duty already paid by the manufacturer under Rule 18. If the said judgment is taken into consideration, the notification issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules which prescribes no time limit alone is applicable and Section 11B of Central Excise Act which prescribes 6 mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
