JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Dev Nath Advocate, assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi Advocate on behalf of the Department.
2. M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. The Company is engaged in export of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, whereby the rebate claimed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 23,25,800/- has been rejected.
3. The fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that in respect of the exports made during 28.3.1999 to 9.7.1999, the petitioner filed 7 refund claims with the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise at Mumbai on 21.9.1999 with reference to Section 11-B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The application so filed by the petitioner was returned under letter dated 9th December, 1999 with the information that the Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai has no jurisdiction in the matter, as the goods were exported from New Delhi. The petitioner was, therefore, advised to file the refund claim before the appropriate Central Excise Authorities.
4. On 20th June, 2000, the petitioner re-submitted their rebate claim application before the Central Excise Division at Moradabad, which was the appropriate authority having jurisdiction in the matter. Certain deficiencies were noticed in respect of the claims so filed by the petitioner, which were removed by the petitioner vide letter dated 8th July, 2000.
5. With reference to a show cause notice dated 8.8.2000, the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division- Moradabad vide order dated 17.10.2000 rejected the refund claims filed by the petitioner on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the prescribed period of six months. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut with the allegation that the claim applications were not barred by the limitation. The appeal so filed was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Meerut vide order dated 12.8.2004 and it was held that the refund claims have been filed within time and therefore admissible and cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation.
6. Not being satisfied, the Department filed a revision before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, to which cross objections were filed by the petitioner. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue by means of the order dated 9th November, 2005 has allowed the revision application filed by the Department and has held that the refund claims filed by the petitioner were beyond the prescribed period of limitation and therefore liable to be rejected as time barred. It is against this order of the Secretary that the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to the issue that the order passed by the Secretary proceeds on complete non-consideration of the amendments made to Section 11-B to the Central Excise Act, whereby the period of limitation for filing the refund application has been extended from six months to one year. He further submits that if the extended period is applied, the claim applications filed by the petitioner on 20th June, 2000 before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division Moradabad were well within the prescribed period of one year.
8. Counsel for the Department farily conceded that the matter requires reconsideration by the State Government in view of the amended Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
10. Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 initially provided a period of six months for filing refund application. The said Section was amended w. e. f. 12th May, 2000 by Finance Act, 2000, whereby the period of limitation for filing refund application was extended from six months to 12 months (1 year).
11. It is no doubt true that the exports were made in the year, 1999 when the limitation for claiming rebate of duty under Section 11 was six months. The amendment made to Section 11-B came into force w.e.f. 12th May, 2000. The issue as to whether the amendment so made would cover the past transactions so as to apply the extended period of limitation to the goods exported prior to 12th May, 2000 was subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. v. Union of India . After referring to the various judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench in paragraph 38 has held as follows:
In our view, in view of the settled legal position of law, the contention of the petitioners that the limitation for filing claim for rebate of duty prescribed under Section 11B is procedural and, therefore, the amendment to the procedural law would apply retrospectively deserved to be accepted.
13. In case the extended period of limitation is applied to the transaction done by the petitioner in the year, 1999 as per the judgment of the Division Bench, it will be seen that the applications for refund filed by the petitioner are well within the prescribed period. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Secretary concerned.
14. In the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid aspect of the matter should have been taken into consideration by the Revisional Authority and non-consideration of the same is fatal to the impugned order. Since the scope of the amended provision of Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, which has been introduced w.e.f. 12.5.2000, has not been taken note of in the impugned order, the same cannot be legally sustained. The order dated 9th November, 2005, passed by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is hereby quashed. The Authority is directed to reconsider the Revision filed by the Department with specific reference to the amendment made in Section 11-B w.e.f. 12th May, 2000 and as interpreted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. (supra). The aforesaid exercise may be completed within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Secretary concerned, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
15. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed.