SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, BENGALURU

Citation: [2022] 9 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 29-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
709
SANSERA ENGINEERING LIMITED
v.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT,
BENGALURU
Civil Appeal No. 8717 of 2022
NOVEMBER 29, 2022
[M.R. SHAH AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Central Excise Act, 1944: s.11B – Rebate of duty of excise –
Limitation – Appellant, manufacturer of excisable goods exported
goods on payment of excise duty between August, 2015 and October,
2015 and filed claims for rebate of duty on 10.02.2017 and
14.02.2017 u/r.18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Claims rejected
as barred by time provided u/s.11B of the Act – Challenge against –
Held: As per explanation (A) to s.11B, ‘refund’ includes rebate of
duty of excise – Therefore, s.11B shall be applicable with respect to
claim for rebate of duty also – As per s.11B(1) of the Act, any person
claiming refund of any duty of excise has to make an application
for refund of such duty to the appropriate authority before the expiry
of one year from the relevant date – Since application for rebate of
duty is governed by s.11B of the Act, it has to be made before the
expiry of one year from the “relevant date” and in such form and
manner as may be prescribed – The form and manner are prescribed
in notification dated 6.9.2004 – Merely because in r.18 of the 2002
Rules, which is an enabling provision for grant of rebate of duty,
there is no reference to s.11B of the Act and/or in notification dated
6.9.2004 issued in exercise of powers conferred by r.18, there is no
reference to the applicability of s.11B of the Act, it cannot be said
that the provision contained in the parent statute, namely, s.11B of
the Act shall not be applicable, which otherwise shall be applicable
in respect of the claim of rebate of duty – s.11B of the Act is a
substantive provision in the parent statute and r.18 of the 2002 rules
and notification can be said to be a subordinate legislation –
Subordinate legislation which is in aid of the parent statute has to
be read in harmony with the parent statute – Subordinate legislation
cannot be interpreted in such a manner that parent statute may
become otiose or nugatory – In the instant case, respective claims
[2022] 9 S.C.R. 709
709
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 9 S.C.R.
were beyond the period of limitation of one year from the relevant
date and were rightly rejected by the appropriate authority.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. As
per Section 11B(1) of the Act, any person claiming refund of any
duty of excise (including the rebate of duty as defined in
Explanation (A) to Section 11B of the Act) has to make an
application for refund of such duty to the appropriate authority
before the expiry of one year from the relevant date and only in
the form and manner as may be prescribed. The “relevant date”
is defined under Explanation (B) to Section 11B of the Act, which
means in the case of goods exported out of India where a refund
of excise duty paid is available in respect of the goods themselves
or, as the case may be, the excisable materials used in the
manufacture of goods….. Thus, the “relevant date” 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. The form and manner are prescribed in the notification
dated 6.9.2004. Merely because in Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules,
which is an enabling provision for grant of rebate of duty, there is
no reference to Section 11B of the Act and/or in the notification
dated 6.9.2004 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule
18, there is no reference to the applicability of Section 11B of the
Act, it cannot be said that the provision contained in the parent
statute, namely, Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable,
which otherwise shall be applicable in respect of the claim of rebate
of duty. [Para 9][723-D-H; 724-A]
2. At this stage, it is to be noted 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 leg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.