Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Saturday, 01 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2022-11-29 dismissed

Sansera Engineering Limited vs Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru

Bench: 2 — M.R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh

In Brief

Sansera Engineering, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported goods between August 2015 and March 2016, paying excise duty, and later claimed rebate of approximately Rs. 1.47 crore under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The authorities rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (which prescribes a one-year limitation period from the "relevant date" of export). The Supreme Court held that Section 11B's limitation period applies to rebate claims because Explanation (A) to Section 11B explicitly includes "rebate of duty" within the definition of "refund." Although subordinate legislation (Rule 18 and notifications) prescribe the form and manner of claiming rebate, they cannot override the parent statute's substantive limitation period. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that rebate claims must comply with Section 11B's one-year limitation.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Excise Law Export Incentives Limitation Period Statutory Construction Subordinate Legislation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login