Order date – 29 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Sansera Engineering Limited, is a manufacturer of excisable goods. It exported goods on payment of excise duty between August, 2015 and October, 2015 and filed claims for rebate of duty paid on the goods exported on 10.02.2017 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Subsequently on 14.02.2017, for the period October 2015 to March 2016, the appellant claimed rebate.
• The above-mentioned rebate claims had rejected as barred by time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act.
• Being aggrieve the appellant had filed an appeal.

Issue –

• Whether the claim for rebate of duty provided under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 shall be applicable or not?

Order –

• The Hon’ble Supreme court observed that on a fair reading of Section 11B of the Act, it can safely be said that Section 11B of the Act shall be applicable with respect to claim for rebate of duty also. As per Explanation (A) to Section 11B, “refund” includes “rebate of duty” of excise. 
• It is also states that Section 11B of the Act is a substantive provision in the parent statute and Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules and notification dated 6.9.2004 can be said to be a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute. Subordinate legislation can always be in aid of the parent statute. Merely because there is no reference of Section 11B of the Act either in Rule 18 or in the notification dated 6.9.2004 on the applicability of Section 11B of the Act, it cannot be said that the Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable at all, which otherwise as observed shall be applicable with respect to rebate of duty claim.
• The Supreme Court relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd. in which it was held 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.
• The “relevant date” is defined under Explanation (B) to Section 11B of the Act, is relatable to the goods exported. Therefore, the application for rebate of duty shall be governed by Section 11B of the Act and therefore shall have to be made before the expiry of one year from the “relevant date” and in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
• 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.
• Hence the appeal is dismissed.