Kyocera Ctc Precision Tools Private Limited Through Ramesh Kumar Agarwalla vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Ministry Of Finance Deptt Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the claim for rebate of duty provided under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is subject to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8717 of 2022 in the case of Sansera Engineering Limited Vrs. Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru. The Supreme Court had held that the one-year period of limitation under Section 11B is applicable to rebate claims under Rule 18. Consequently, as the petitioner's claims were beyond the period of limitation of one year from the relevant date, they were rightly rejected by the authorities and confirmed by the revisional authority. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Kyocera CTC Precision Tools Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 6, 2021, passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. This order confirmed the rejection of the petitioner's claim for rebate of Central Excise Duty filed under Notification No. 19/2004 - Central Excise (NT) read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claims pertained to goods exported during the periods January 2015 to March 2015, October 2014 to December 2014, and April 2015 to May 2015. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and directions to grant the rebate, along with interest, arguing that the one-year limitation period introduced by an amendment to Notification No. 19/2004 via Notification No. 18/2016-Central Excise (NT) dated March 1, 2016, should not apply retrospectively to their claims filed prior to March 1, 2016.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application for rebate of excise duty on goods exported during the periods January 2015 to March 2015, October 2014 to December 2014, and April 2015 to May 2015, made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are barred by a limitation period of one year? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that there was no limitation period specified in the original provisions. They argued that the one-year limitation prescribed by the amending notification no. 18/2016-CE(NT) dated March 1, 2016, should apply prospectively and therefore would not bar their claims filed for exports prior to March 1, 2016. They relied on the principle that amendments introducing time bars are generally prospective unless expressly stated otherwise. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is applicable to rebate claims made under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. They contended that the claims filed by the petitioner were beyond the one-year period of limitation from the relevant date and were therefore rightly rejected.