Claims for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not allowable if claims were made after expiry of the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Court has held that Subordinate legislation cannot be interpreted in such a manner that parent statute may become otiose or nugatory.

"13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant is concerned, on considering the relevant provisions of Central Excise Act, namely, Sections 11A & 11B of the Act, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable with respect to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act with respect to claim for rebate of duty. The question involved in the Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra) was with respect to recovery of Modvat wrongly availed. In that case, it was the manufacturer who claimed the benefit under Section 11A of the Act by stating that no recovery could be made beyond the period of one year limitation under Section 11A of the Act. This Court negated that claim by observing that recovery contemplated under Section11A is different and distinct from the Modvat wrongly availed. For reaching that conclusion, this Court considered that the recovery of Modvat would be governed by a special provision contained in Rule 57-I and therefore the provision of Section 11A of the Act, which is a general provision, shall not be applicable. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, section 11B of the Act shall be specifically applicable with respect to claim for rebate of duty. Therefore, as such, section 11B of the Act cannot be said to be a general provision. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act shall have to be made applicable with respect to claim for rebate of duty. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. (supra) and other decisions of the Madras High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court taking a contrary view, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra), are not a good law and shall not be of any assistance to the appellant. 

14. At this stage, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd.(supra) is required to be referred to. In the said case, the Bombay High Court was considering the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act with respect to rebate of excise duty. In the said decision, it is specifically observed that since statutory provision for refund in Section 11B ibid brings within its purview, a rebate of excise duty, Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules cannot be read independent of requirement of limitation prescribed in Section 11B. Before the Bombay High Court, the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which is relied upon on behalf of the appellant was also pressed into service by the assessee. However, the Bombay High Court did not agree with the said decision. The Bombay High Court also distinguished the decision of this Court in the case of Raghuvar (India) Ltd. (supra). In paragraphs 7 to 10, it is observed and held as under:

------x--------------x--------------------x-----------------------x------------

We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd. (supra). Contrary decisions of Madras High Court, Allahabad High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court, referred to hereinabove, are hereby overruled. 

15. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is observed and held that while making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable. In the present case, as the respective claims were beyond the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date, the same are rightly rejected by the appropriate authority and the same are rightly confirmed by the High Court." 

SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; C.A. No.8717/2022 dated 29.11.2022

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case law (SC) -- SLP dismissed against order of High Court where notice u/s 148 was quashed stating that notice u/s 148 must comply with the Faceless Scheme regardless of the Assessee being a NRI/Indian Citizen.

ADIT (INT TAXN) 2 HYD & ANR. v. DEEPANJAN ROY[SLP (CIVIL) No. 33956/2025 dated 16.07.2025]  "1. Delay condoned. 2. Exemption Application is allowed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners – Revenue and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good reason to interfere with  the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. "  
Read more

Case law (SC) - Once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, All the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code.

Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [2025 INSC 375] dated 20.03.2024 "8. In view o f the declaration of law made by this Court, all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code. In this case, the income tax dues of the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, the dues of the first respondent owed by the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 stand extinguished.  9. We may note here that the decision of this Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd.[(2021) 9 SCC 657 ]  was specifically relied upo...
Read more

Case Law (SC) - Where an assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC as well as 80IA, the deductions have to be computed separately, but the total deduction shall be restricted to gross total income computed under section 80IA.

Shital Fibers Limited v. CIT [2025 INSC 743] dated 20.05.2025 Issue :- The extent of deduction allowable separately under Section 80-IA and Section 80-HHC and the extent of deduction allowable through each provision and overall deduction allowable by adding them up. Holding "Section 80-HHC provides for a deduction in respect of profits retained for export business. The provision is applicable to a company or a person engaged in business of export out of India of any goods or mercantile to which the Section applies. In computing the total income, the assessee is entitled to deduction to the extent of percentage of profits set out in Subsection (1B) of Section 80-HHC.  17. Section 80-IA deals with deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development etc. Sub-section (1) provides that when the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived by an undertaking or an enterprise from any busi...
Read more