9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under AR 4A No. 105 dated 28-11-1988, 121 dated 16-12-1988 and 134 dated 29-12-1988 respectively, which rebate claims were received in the office of Maritime Collector (Assistant Collector in this case) as per details given below :- Sl. No. AR 4A No. dated Date of Export Date of submission No. " of rebate claim 1. 105 28-11-1988 7-12-1988 28-9-1989 2. 121 16-12-1988 23-12-1988 28-9-1989 3. 134 29-12-1988 19-1-1989 28-9-1989 3. As these claims were received by the Maritime Collector after the expiry of six months from the date of exportation the same were rejected in terms of Notification No. 197/62 dated 17-11-1962, as amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell in view of export efforts. 7. The short point left to be decided is whether after the amendment to Notification No. 197/62 by Notification No. 27/89 (N.T.), dated 9-6-1989 under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, the invocation of the powers by Collector (Appeals) under proviso to Rule 12, in condoning the marginal delay in filing the rebate claim beyond six months time limit was legally permissible. 8. Since this is an important issue for a decision, it seems necessary to discuss some relevant case law on the subject. 9. Supreme Court in the case of K. Eapan Choke v.The Provident Investment Co. (P) Ltd. [reported in AIR 1976 SC 2610 Para 37] has held inter alia that "if the legislature forms a new procedure alterations in the form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g vested rights. 12. It may be noted that the longer period of limitation, under Rule 11 before the amendment dated 6-8-1977 was applied by the Tribunal in that case (Rajasthan Worsted Spinning Mills) since subsequent law curtailed the period of limitation previously allowed and took away a vested right. 13. The position in the instant case is different. Here in their wisdom Government have amended Notification No. 197/62 and substituted a period of six months in place of a period with reference to Section 11B Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 which also provided a period of six months only. One would naturally like to enquire why should that be? The only explanation possible for this amendment is that by virtue of proviso to Rule 12 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty had not lost the time for filing the claim in respect of consignments at Sr. No. 2 3. On the date of amendment it was only in respect of consignment at Sr. No. 1 that one may conclude that the claim fell in the category of "dead remedy", which has in any case to be rejected. 16. As discussed above the effect of amendment of Notification 27/89 was that instead of putting a time limit on filing of claims of rebate with reference to the statutory provisions (Section 11B) a period of six months (although the same as that appearing in Section 11B) was put. Thus, the notification became self-contained without any reference to the statutory provisions of the Central Excise Act. 17. As discussed in para 13 supra when a power of condonatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no bar in applying the latest time limit unless before the amendment (i.e. 9-6-1989) time limit had already expired as per the extant laws. Inasmuch as in the two cases, (at Sr. Nos. 2 3) the period of six months with reference to Section 11B had not expired by 9-6-1989 and by the said amendment Collector could condone the period as the same no more drew sustenance from Section 11B, the powers of the said proviso have rightly been made use of by Collector (Appeals). However, in respect of Sr. No. 1 the power could not be exercised by her. 20. Even on merits, particularly as we are dealing with exports, condonation of marginal delay in filing claims in respect of Sr. No. 2 3 is justified and order of Collector (Appeals) in that regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
