M.M. Sundresh JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 249/2020, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Appellant herein and has confirmed the common judgment and order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, upholding the order passed by the Respondent rejecting the claim of the Appellant for rebate on the ground that the claim was barred by time/limitation prescribed Under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the original writ Petitioner/Appellant herein has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That the Appellant herein - M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited is a manufacturer of excisable goods. It exported goods on payment of excise duty between August, 2015 and October, 2015 and filed claims for rebate of duty paid on the goods exported on 10.02.2017 to the tune of Rs. 29,47,996/- and Rs. 42,27,928/- Under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the '2002 Rules') in respect of these exports. Subsequently on 14.02.2017, for the period October 2015 to March 2016, the Appellant claimed rebate of Rs. 1,47,27,766/-.
2.1. The original authority rejected the above-mentioned rebate claims as barred by time prescribed Under Section 11B of the Act vide three different Orders-in-Original. Aggrieved by the respective Orders-in-Original rejected the respective claims as barred by time prescribed Under Section 11B of the Act, the Appellant preferred writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide common order dated 22.11.2019 dismissed the said writ petitions holding that the claims for rebate were made beyond the period of one year prescribed Under Section 11B of the Act. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment and order in Writ Appeal No. 249/2020. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Shri Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has made the following contentions in support of his submission that for rebate claim, the period prescribed Under Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable:
i) that the grant of rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid as provided Under Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules is different than that of refund of duty entitled Under Section 11B