https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259340 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 Excise Act, 1944. The Court ruled that the subsequent amendment extending the limitation period to one year could not revive these claims retroactively. It emphasized that procedural laws cannot revive claims already time-barred before the amendment and clarified that subordinate legislation, such as Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, cannot override statutory provisions. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming the dismissal of the rebate claims as untimely. en-us Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2020 13:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259340 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 Excise Act, 1944. The Court ruled that the subsequent amendment extending the limitation period to one year could not revive these claims retroactively. It emphasized that procedural laws cannot revive claims already time-barred before the amendment and clarified that subordinate legislation, such as Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, cannot override statutory provisions. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, affirming the dismissal of the rebate claims as untimely. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259340