SANSERA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners are before this Court challenging the orders passed by the original Authority rejecting the rebate claim made by them as barred by time under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ['Rules' for short] read with Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ['Act' in short]. It is contended that no time limit has been prescribed for filing a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Rules and Section 11-B of the Act is not applicable to the Notification No.19/2004/CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 issued by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Rules. The petitioners had claimed the refund of rebate for the exports made during periods prior to the amendment effected on 01.03.2016 to the Notification No.19/2004 whereby Section 11-B of the Act was made applicable to the said Notification. It was argued that Notification No.41/94 CE did contain the time limit referring to Section 11-B of the Act. Consciously, the same was omitted in the Notification No.19/2004 CE (NT), issued superseding the previous Notification No.41/1994.

(3.) It was contended that in the absence of any time limit prescribed under Rule 18 of the Rules and the Notification No.19/2004, amendment brought to Notification of 19/2004, applying Section 11-B of the Act vide Notification No.18/2016/CE(NT) dated 1.3.2016 is prospective in nature. The respondent Authorities cannot apply the amended Notification retrospectively for the exports made prior to the said amendment. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Dorcas Market Makers Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T 45 (Mad) confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, submitted that the very issue was the subject matter of the petitions considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court which have been decided in favour of the assessee holding that the rebate of duty under Rule 18 should be as per the Notification issued by the Central Government which prescribes the conditions, limitations and procedures for considering the claim for refund. The limitation prescribed under Sub-section(1) of 11-B of the Act has not been made applicable under the Notification No.19 of 2004 during the relevant period. The entitlement to refund not being in doubt, in the absence of any time prescription in the scheme, the rejection of the application for refund as time barred, is unjust. It is submitted that similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: