LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus UTIAM STEEL LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2015] 4 S.C.R. 770 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. UTIAM STEEL LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 7449 of 2004) MAY 05, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Central Excise Act, 1944 - s. 118 - Claim for refund of C duty - Denial of - Barred by limitation - Assessee engaged in manufacture and export - Claims for rebate - Filed beyond the period of six months from the date of shipment u/s. 118- Subsequently, s. 118 was amended on 12.5.2000 0 where the period of six months was substituted by a period of one year - Application of amended provision - Held: Effect of the amendment of s. 11 B 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 - E However, claim for rebate should not be made beyond the original period of six months - On facts, claims for rebate were made beyond the original period of six months, thus, assessee cannot avail of the extended period of one year on the subsequent amendment to s. 118 - Central Excise F Rules - rr. 12, 13. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A period of limitation being procedural or adjectival law would ordinarily be retrospective in G nature. This, however, is with one proviso super added which is that the claim made under the amended provision should not itself have been a dead claim in the sense that it was time barred before an Amending H 770 UNION OF INDIA v. UTTAM STEEL LTD. 771 Act with a larger period of limitation comes into force. A [Para 10) (776-G-H; 777-A] 1.2 The effect of the amendment of Section 118 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 12th May, 2000 is that all claims for rebate pending on this date would be · B 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 facts, since the claims for rebate were made beyond the original C period of six months, the respondents cannot avail of the extended period of one year on the subsequent amendment to Section 118. All claims for rebate/refund have to be made only u/s.118 with one exception-where a statute is struck down as unconstitutional. Further, D the limitation period of six months has to be strictly applied. [Para 11] (779-D-E; 781-E-F] 1.3 It is clear from Section 118 (2) proviso (a) that a rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported E out of India would be covered by the said provision. A reading of *Mafatlal lndustri~s case would also show that such claims for rebate can only be made under Section 118 within the period of limitation stated therefor. This being the case, the argument based on F Rule 12 would have to be discarded as it is not open to subordinate legislation to dispense with the requirements of Section 118. Equally, the argument that on a bond being provided under Rule 13, the goods would have been exported without any problem of G limitation would not hold as the exporter in the instant case chose the route under Rule 12 which, is something that can only be done if the application for rebate had been made within six months. [Para 13] [787-H; 788-A- H D] 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A *Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1996 (10) Suppl. seR 585: (1997) 5 sec 536 - relied on. S.S. Gadgil v. Lal and Company AIR 1965 s.e. 171: 1964 SeR 72; J.P Jani, Income Tax Officer v. lnduprasad B Devshanker Bhatt AIR 1969 SC 778: 1969 SCR 714; New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shanti Misra 1976 (2) SCR 266 : (1975) 2 sec 840; T Kaliamurthi v. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf2008 (11) SCR 758: (2008) 9 SCC 306; Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India 2011 (4) SCR 838: (2011) c 6 sec 739 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1964 SCR 72 Referred to. Para 10 D 1969 SCR 714 Referred to. Para 10 1976 (2) SCR 266 Referred to. Para 10 2008 (11) SCR 758 Referred to. Para 10 E 2011 (4) seR 838 Referred to. Para 10 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 585Relied on Para 11, 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. F 7449 of 2004. G H From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 557 of 2003. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ritesh Kumar, K. Subba Rao, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. S. K. Bagaria (AC.), K. A. Singh, Prity Kunwar, George Thomas, Ejaz Maqbool for the Respondent. UNION OF INDIA v. UTIAM STEEL LTD. 773
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.