By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 06, 2015: THE respondent was engaged in the manufacture and export of steel products. They exported galvanized corrugated sheets. The goods were shipped on board on 25.5.1999 and 10.6.1999 respectively in two lots. As per the law prevailing at the relevant time, the respondent had to file claims for rebate within six months from the date of shipment i.e. on or before 20.11.1999 and 10.12.1999 respectively. However, claims for rebate on both counts were filed only on 28.12.1999 beyond the period of six months under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant time.

By an order dated 4.10.2001, the Deputy Commissioner (Rebate) rejected the claim for rebate on the ground that they were time barred.

Section 11B was amended on 12.5.2000 where the period of six months was substituted by a period of one year. Since the rebate application was filed within the period of one year from the date of the two shipments, the respondent contended that they were within time.

By an order dated 15.2.2002, the appellate authority allowed the respondent's appeal holding that the extended period of one year was available to the respondent, the period prescribed for limitation being procedural law and, therefore, retrospective in nature.

Against this order, the Central Government by an order dated 16.8.2002 allowed the revision applications of the Union holding that the extended period of limitation of one year was not available to the assessee.

The assessee's writ petition being Writ No.557 of 2003 was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 12.8.2003 by the Bombay High Court.

The matter is in appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed, "The effect of the amendment of Section 11B on 12th May, 2000 is that all claims for rebate pending on this date would be governed by a period of one year from the date of shipment and not six months. This, however, is subject to the rider that the claim for rebate should not be made beyond the original period of six months. On the facts of the present case, since the claims for rebate were made beyond the original period of six months, the respondents cannot avail of the extended period of one year on the subsequent amendment to Section 11B."

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that on a bond being provided under Rule 13, the goods would have been exported without any problem of limitation, as the exporter in the present case chose the route under Rule 12 which, as has been stated above, is something that can only be done if the application for rebate had been made within six months.

Revenue appeal allowed and High Court order set aside.

(See 2015-TIOL-98-SC-CX )