2012 (10) TMI 866 - HC - Central Excise

Court Rules in Favor of Petitioner on Rebate Claim Time Limit Dispute

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the time limit under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to rebate claims ... Rebate claim - period of limitation– claim is with regard to the rebate of the excise duty already paid by the manufacturer under Rule 18 – Held that:- 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 months time for claiming rebate would not be applicable to deny the rebate claim of the petitioner - respondent is directed to pay the rebate amount claimed by the petitioner Issues Involved:Denial of rebate of excise duty already paid due to limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 for a claim made under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Detailed Analysis:The petitioner exported Medimix Ayurvedic Toilet Soaps and sought rebate of excise duty already paid by the manufacturer. The petitioner's application for rebate was rejected based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and this rejection was confirmed by the authorities. The petitioner argued that the relevant Notification No. 19 of 2004 did not prescribe any time limit for claiming rebate, unlike the earlier Notification No. 41/94. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner contended that Rule 18 alone applied to rebate claims, not Section 11B. The Standing Counsel for Customs and Central Excise Department argued that the statute's time limit under Section 11B prevails over rules and that late applications should be rejected. The court examined whether Section 11B's time limit applied to rebate claims under Rule 18 or if the notification under Rule 18 governed, noting that the latter did not specify a time limit.The court compared the two notifications, highlighting the omission of a time limit in the later Notification No. 19 of 2004. It emphasized that when a notification under Rule 18 does not set a time limit, Section 11B cannot be applied to deny the rebate claim. Referring to a relevant Supreme Court case, it clarified that rules like Rule 18 operate independently of statutory provisions like Section 11B. The court concluded that the absence of a time limit in the notification meant Section 11B's 6-month limit did not apply to the petitioner's rebate claim, directing the authorities to pay the rebate amount within six weeks.The court addressed the argument of an alternative remedy, stating that the issue of applying either the statute or the notification under the rule was the main concern. It emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy did not prevent the court from exercising powers under Article 226. Consequently, the court quashed the order denying the rebate claim and instructed the authorities to pay the claimed rebate amount to the petitioner within six weeks, allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.