2012 (7) TMI 848 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - export of the diaries, through merchant exporter, against CT-1, without payment of duty - refund of duty paid on excisable inputs used in the manufacture of the said diaries granted - Later on the reviewing authority found that, as the goods were exported under DEPB scheme, the rebate was not admissible - Commissioner rejected such contention - Held that - goods were exported without payment of duty under CT-1. As such, the exporter suffered duty only at one stage i.e. at input stage. It is also undisputed fact that the respondent has availed DEPB benefit on export of their final product. DEPB benefit includes refund of duties suffered on account of duties of Customs and duties of excise. In this case, the applicant department has contested that the respondent did not use any imported inputs and hence, they have not suffered any Customs duty. This fact has not been controverted by respondent by way of any incontrovertible evidences. Hence, the export of goods has suffered only duties of excise paid on inputs. Since, the respondent has availed DEPB benefit, it can be logically inferred that they have been refunded duties of excise suffered on inputs by way of DEPB benefit. The intention of any export related scheme is to promote export of goods by ensuring that all the duties suffered on such exported goods are refunded. Having said so, it is also not intention of such export oriented scheme to extend double benefit of exporter. In this case, the respondent having availed DEPB benefit cannot be allowed to avail rebate of duty paid on inputs, as the same would amount to double benefit. Government notes that the applicant M/s. Hi Speed Offsets, a manufacturer has exported goods through merchant exporter against CT-I without payment of duty. The said exports are made under bond without payment of duty in terms of provisions of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. But the applicant manufacturer has claimed input rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. For claiming rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods, the provision of Rule 18 Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) or 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 6-9-2004 are to be followed. At the same time, if the exporter does not want to export goods under claim of rebate under Rule 18 ibid, he has the facility of exporting goods under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Goods were exported under the provisions of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and therefore the benefit of rebate claim under Rule 18 ibid is not admissible in this case. it is a settled law that ordinary and natural meaning of words has to construed and adhered to as per principles laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. I.T.C Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Further it is also settled law that statutes as clarified/elaborated for application by CBEC circulars are binding on Revenue/departmental officers as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in the case of CCE, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries Ltd. - 2002 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Revision allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of rebate claim under DEPB scheme.
2. Double benefit of DEPB and rebate.
3. Applicability of Rule 18 and Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and conditions under DEPB scheme.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of rebate claim under DEPB scheme:
The central issue revolves around whether the manufacturer, having exported goods under the DEPB scheme, is eligible for a rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of those goods. The Department contended that since the exporter claimed DEPB benefits, no right vests in the exporter/manufacturer to claim the rebate of duty paid on inputs, resulting in a double benefit for the same export. The respondent argued that the endorsement of shipment by Customs authorities on ARE-2s indicated that the benefits under DEPB scheme are not excluded by the availment of the rebate claim.

2. Double benefit of DEPB and rebate:
The Department argued that DEPB benefits include refunds of duties suffered on account of customs and excise duties, and since the respondent did not use any imported inputs, they only suffered excise duties on inputs. Allowing the rebate claim would result in a double benefit, which is against the intention of export-related schemes designed to refund all duties suffered on exported goods but not to extend double benefits. The respondent countered that the DEPB scheme and rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) do not overlap, and thus, availing both does not lead to dual benefits.

3. Applicability of Rule 18 and Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The Government noted that the goods were exported under CT-1 without payment of duty on the final product, and the respondent claimed a rebate of duty paid on inputs. Rule 18 allows for a rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or materials used in their manufacture, while Rule 19 permits export without payment of duty. The Government emphasized that the exporter must choose one scheme and comply with its provisions. The respondent exported goods under Rule 19, which does not allow for a rebate claim under Rule 18. Allowing such a claim would amalgamate two different schemes, which is impermissible.

4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and conditions under DEPB scheme:
The Government referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, asserting that the ordinary and natural meaning of words in statutes must be adhered to. The statutes and CBEC circulars, which clarify the application of these statutes, are binding on Revenue/departmental officers. The Government concluded that the respondent's export under Rule 19 does not entitle them to a rebate under Rule 18, aligning with the statutory provisions and the intention behind these rules.

Conclusion:
The Government set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal, finding that the respondent, having exported goods under Rule 19, is not entitled to claim a rebate under Rule 18. The revision application filed by the Department was allowed, preventing the respondent from availing double benefits under the DEPB scheme and rebate provisions.