HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD. Vs. DEPT. OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 7-10-2015 passed in W.P. No. 9062 of 2015 by a Writ Court of this High Court, this Writ Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the learned Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition is arbitrary and baseless. There is no specific provision governing the time-limit for filing a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. There is also no connection between the rebate claim filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Though short payment of duty was made due to error in system and the same was not noticed by the scrutinizing authority, such amount of duty was paid by the appellant company on its own, without any demand notice from the revenue, which itself shows the bona fide intention of the appellant. The learned Judge failed to consider that reliance was placed on Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Both these provisions do not specify any time limit for the rebate of duty. The learned Judge erred in placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. Uttam Steel Ltd., [2015 (319) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.)] where the facts and circumstances are different from that of the present case. Inasmuch as the other conditions of the earlier notifications remain stand in the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), and no time limit has been prescribed in the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is liable to be set aside.