2015 (5) TMI 214 - SC - Central Excise

Rebate claims time-barred under original law; amendment cannot revive retroactively

The Supreme Court held that the rebate claims filed by the respondent were time-barred under the original six-month period of Section 11B of the Central ... Denial of rebate claim - Bar of limitation - Claim filed beyond period of 6 months / i year - delay of only few days - Held that:- From the law laid down by the decision [Mafatlal Industries (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)] it is clear that all claims for rebate/refund have to be made only under Section 11B with one exception - where a statute is struck down as unconstitutional. Further, the limitation period of six months has to be strictly applied. It is clear from Section 11B(2) proviso (a) that a rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India would be covered by the said provision. A reading of Mafatlal Industries (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would also show that such claims for rebate can only be made under Section 11B within the period of limitation stated therefor. This being the case, the argument based on Rule 12 would have to be discarded as it is not open to subordinate legislation to dispense with the requirements of Section 11B. Equally, the argument that on a bond being provided under Rule 13, the goods would have been exported without any problem of limitation would not hold as the exporter in the present case chose the route under Rule 12 which, as has been stated above, is something that can only be done if the application for rebate had been made within six months. - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Retrospective application of the amended Section 11B.3. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules in conjunction with Section 11B.4. Authority of subordinate legislation to override statutory provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of Rebate Claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The respondent exported galvanized corrugated sheets and filed claims for rebate beyond the original six-month period stipulated under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. A show cause notice was issued, and the Deputy Commissioner (Rebate) rejected the claims as time-barred. The appellate authority initially allowed the appeal, stating that the extended one-year period was retrospective. However, the Central Government reversed this decision, maintaining that the extended period did not apply retroactively to revive time-barred claims.2. Retrospective Application of the Amended Section 11B:The amendment to Section 11B on 12.5.2000 extended the limitation period from six months to one year. The respondent argued that this amendment should apply retrospectively. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that procedural laws, such as limitation periods, are retrospective and that the amended one-year period applied to exports made within one year before the amendment. However, the Supreme Court held that while procedural laws are generally retrospective, they cannot revive claims that were already time-barred before the amendment.3. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules in Conjunction with Section 11B:Rule 12 allows for the rebate of duty on exported goods and includes a proviso enabling the Commissioner of Central Excise to waive certain conditions if the goods have been exported. The respondent contended that this proviso allowed the Commissioner to overlook the six-month limitation. However, the Supreme Court clarified that claims for rebate must comply with Section 11B's limitation period, and subordinate legislation like Rule 12 cannot override statutory provisions.4. Authority of Subordinate Legislation to Override Statutory Provisions:The Supreme Court emphasized that subordinate legislation, such as rules and notifications, cannot dispense with the requirements of the parent statute. In this case, Rule 12's proviso could not override the six-month limitation period set by Section 11B. The Court cited precedents, including Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, to reinforce that all rebate/refund claims must adhere to the statutory limitation period.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that the rebate claims filed by the respondent were time-barred under the original six-month period of Section 11B and could not be revived by the subsequent amendment extending the limitation period to one year. The Court reaffirmed that procedural amendments cannot retroactively revive claims that were already barred and that subordinate legislation cannot override statutory provisions.