2003 (12) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958.
2. Contravention of Notification 40/01 and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules.
3. Imposition of penalty on the companies.
4. Claim for rebate and export of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a sugar mill selling sugar to another corporation based on an advice release order. The issue arose when duty was demanded under the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, which was later repealed. The Commissioner found contravention of Notification 40/01 and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, imposing a penalty on both companies. The appellants argued that as there was no claim for rebate, contravention of Rule 18 or Notification 40/01 did not apply since the sugar was cleared with duty paid and there was no rebate claim made by the manufacturer or exporter. They presented a certificate indicating the export of goods to Nepal. The departmental representative supported the original order.

The Tribunal, in its judgment, expressed confusion over the Commissioner's actions. It noted that the demand for duty under the repealed Act was not sustainable, and the issue of rebate was not raised in the original notice but introduced in the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules allows rebate on exported goods subject to specific procedures, including lodging a rebate claim with the jurisdictional authority. Since no rebate claim was made, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for imposing a penalty on the manufacturer or exporter. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, ruling in favor of the appellants.