Limitation for rebate claims cannot revive time-barred claims, and subordinate rules cannot override the parent statute.

An amendment enlarging the limitation period for rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not revive claims that had already become time-barred under the earlier six-month period. The statutory scheme treated rebate and refund claims as governed by Section 11B, so Rule 12 and the notification under it could not override that limitation. The alternative reliance on Rule 13 was unavailable because the exporter had proceeded under Rule 12. The principle stated is that an enlarged procedural limitation does not resurrect a dead claim, and subordinate legislation cannot displace the parent statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment enlarging the limitation period for rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied retrospectively so as to revive claims already barred under the unamended provision, and whether Rule 12 or Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could override that statutory limitation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated rebate/refund claims as claims to be made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Although limitation is ordinarily procedural and may operate retrospectively, that principle does not revive a claim that had already become time-barred before the amendment came into force. The amendment of 12.5.2000 enlarged the period from six months to one year, but the respondents' rebate claims had been filed beyond the original six-month period and had already become a dead claim. Rule 12 and the notification issued under it could not dispense with the requirement of Section 11B, and the alternative reliance on Rule 13 was unavailable because the exporter had chosen to proceed under Rule 12.

Conclusion: The amended one-year limitation did not apply to revive the time-barred rebate claims, and the claims remained barred under the original six-month period.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the rebate claims were held to be time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging a procedural limitation period does not revive a claim that had already become barred before the amendment, and subordinate legislation cannot override the limitation prescribed by the parent statute.

---