Statutory limitation governs rebate claims for exported services even when the notification is silent on time limits.

A rebate claim for exported services filed after the prescribed period was held barred by limitation. The governing rebate notification did not override the statutory time limit where Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The absence of a separate limitation period in the notification did not exclude the statutory limitation under the parent enactment, so the claim could not be treated as timely. The order allowing the rebate was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rebate claim for exported services was barred by limitation and whether the absence of a time limit in the notification excluded the statutory limitation under the governing enactment.

Analysis: The rebate claim related to exports made during the relevant period, but it was filed after the prescribed time. The governing rebate mechanism did not displace the statutory limitation where Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was attracted through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the statute itself prescribed a time limit, the claim could not be treated as timely merely because the notification did not separately prescribe one.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was barred by limitation and the impugned order allowing it was set aside.

---