Statutory limitation for rebate claims cannot be waived by delegated rules or remand directions; time-barred claims remain rejected.

The statutory six-month limitation for rebate or refund claims under Section 11B prevailed over the relaxation power in Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The proviso to Rule 12(1) and the related notification could relax procedural requirements for exports, but they could not override or condone delay where the parent Act fixed the filing period. A remand direction in revision did not bind the Collector to condone delay or admit the claims, and the Collector remained entitled to apply the statutory bar. Rebate claims filed beyond the prescribed period were therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government of India could validly remand the matter with a direction to the Executive Collector in the revision proceedings; (ii) whether the Collector was bound by the Government's remand order to condone the delay and admit the rebate claims; and (iii) whether delay in lodging the rebate claims beyond the period prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 could be condoned under the proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): Whether the Government of India could validly remand the matter with a direction to the Executive Collector in the revision proceedings.

Analysis: The revision arose from an order of the Collector (Appeals), while the Executive Collector's orders were not appealable to the Government of India. The remand direction could not properly be addressed to the Executive Collector, and the Government's observation about condonation of delay did not amount to a valid bar on the Collector deciding the question under the governing provisions.

Conclusion: The Government's remand did not preclude the Collector from deciding whether the delay in filing the rebate claims was condonable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector was bound by the Government's remand order to condone the delay and admit the rebate claims.

Analysis: The Government's direction was only to examine the application to condone delay and admit the claims if otherwise in order. That direction did not mandate condonation. The Collector therefore remained competent to examine the statutory bar of limitation and reject the claims if the law so required.

Conclusion: The Collector was not bound to condone the delay or admit the claims merely because of the remand order.

Issue (iii): Whether delay in lodging the rebate claims beyond the period prescribed in Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 could be condoned under the proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the six-month period for lodging rebate/refund claims as mandatory. The proviso to Rule 12(1) and the corresponding notification could relax procedural conditions relating to export, but they could not override the time-limit expressly fixed by the statute. The departmental authorities were bound by the statute, and claims lodged beyond the prescribed period were barred. The illness of staff did not alter the legal position.

Conclusion: Delay beyond the statutory period under Section 11B could not be condoned under Rule 12(1), and the rebate claims remained time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation for rebate/refund claims prevailed over the relaxation power under the rules, and the rejection of the claims as time-barred was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule-making power or notification issued under delegated legislation cannot be used to waive or override a statutory limitation period expressly fixed by the parent Act for filing rebate or refund claims.

---