M/s.Bachman Industries India Ltd v. Additional Secretary to the Government of India

The law is now well settled insofar as Section 11-B of the Act is concerned, which prescribes time limit for making a claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sansera Engineering Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1635. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, while making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed u/s 11-B of the Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27147 of 2023unamended Act shall have to be applied and is applicable. Section 11-B of the unamended Act is reproduced hereunder, which is also reflected in the impugned order :-

(a) In the case of goods exported out of India where a refund of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves or, as the case may be, the excisable materials used in the manufacture of such goods-(i) If the goods were exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or the aircraft in which such goods are loaded, leaves India, or(ii) If the goods are by land, the date on which such goods pass the frontier, or(iii) If the goods are exported by post, the date of dispatch of goods by the Post Office concerned to a place outside India.

3.

In the case on hand, it is an undisputed fact that the application seeking rebate of duty has been made by the petitioner beyond the period of one year. The details of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Customs authorities are reproduced hereunder :-S.No.ARE1No./dateDuty amount paid/claimed as refund (in Rs.)Date of exportDate of filing the refund117/03-02-1614,88,209/-21-03-1611/5/2017218/24-02-163,15,450/-07-04-16319/15-03-167,54,050/-29-03-16420/16-03-163,39,025/-29-03-16501/06-04-164,64,700/-24-04-16Total amount33,61,434/-Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27147 of 20234. Since the claim for rebate has been made beyond the period of one year as seen from the tabular column referred to supra, the said claim has been rightly rejected under the impugned order, since the same has been made beyond the period of one year as prescribed u/s 11-B of the unamended Act.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim for refund was made only under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, which according to him does not prescribe any period of limitation, the said argument is rejected on the ground that the respondent while rejecting the petitioner’s application under the impugned order has rejected the same by only taking into account that the application was filed by the petitioner only under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, seeking for rebate of duty as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents as well as in the impugned order, namely Sansera Engineering Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru & Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1635 squarely applies to the case of the petitioner and therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, since the claim of the petitioner has been filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under the unamended Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.27147 of 20236.