1987 (1) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.  We have heard both sides. The arguments before us were confined to the question of time bar and the merits of the appeal were not gone into. The appellants pressed for the following points only :- (1) Rule 11, which lays down the period of limitation for refund claims, was a delegated legislation. Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, under which the rule was framed, did not authorise making of a rule on the period of limitation. The rule was, therefore, in excess of jurisdiction and rule-making power of the Central Government. The limitation was a very vital matter since it cut into the right of refund of the assessee. The Parliament alone was, therefore,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. Further, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 38, the Rules had been laid before both the Houses of Parliament. Under Section 38, the Parliament had the power to make modifications in the Rules or to declare that the Rules would be of no effect. The rules laid before the Parliament, in respect of which the Parliament made no amendment or declaration as aforesaid, were deemed to have been approved by the Parliament. They were, therefore, no less effective than the provisions of the Act itself. (2) The authorities constituted under the Act were bound by the limitation provided for in the statute [reliance on 1985 E.C.R. 289(S.C.) - Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs]. (3) The provisions of the Limitation A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... well settled proposition of law that the rules framed by the Competent Authority in terms of a power validly delegated to it under the Act become part and parcel of the Act itself. It is also well known that the Central Excises Act was a bare skeleton and it left the manner of collection of duty to be prescribed by the Rules framed by the Central Government. The assessee's right to refund itself was under the Rules only (Rule 11) till the Rule was substituted by Section 11B of the Act on 17-11-1980. The appellants admitted before us that no Court had declared Rule 11, or any part of it, as ultra vires. In any case, this Tribunal is hardly the forum where an argument could be advanced to say that the Rule should be ignored as being in exces....