1984 (4) TMI 293 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Rebate of Duty
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 231/76-C.E.
3. Pro-rata Apportionment of Duty Paid
4. Legal Definition and Scope of "Rebate"

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Rebate of Duty:
The manufacturers claimed a rebate of Rs. 1,45,917.00 based on the goods exported, while the Collector of Central Excise contended that no rebate was due. The Assistant Collector initially held that the duty on goods cleared for home consumption exceeded the duty paid, resulting in no rebate entitlement. The Collector (Appeals) partially allowed the rebate, limiting it to Rs. 17,408.85, based on a pro-rata apportionment of the duty paid.

2. Interpretation of Notification No. 231/76-C.E.:
The manufacturers argued that Notification No. 231/76 allowed for a rebate without an upper limit, based on the total quantum of goods exported. They claimed the notification should be interpreted independently of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal found this argument incorrect, noting that the notification explicitly referenced Rule 12 and Rule 173RH, indicating that it should not be read independently of these rules. Rule 12 specifies that the rebate is of the duty paid, and Notification No. 231/76, issued under Rule 12, cannot be construed to allow a rebate exceeding the duty paid.

3. Pro-rata Apportionment of Duty Paid:
The Collector (Appeals) apportioned the duty paid between goods exported and those cleared for home consumption. The Tribunal found this approach unjustified, stating that the rebate should be allowed up to the total amount of duty paid, without apportionment. The Tribunal held that the manufacturers should be entitled to a rebate equal to the duty paid during the relevant period, i.e., Rs. 20,568.86.

4. Legal Definition and Scope of "Rebate":
The Tribunal referred to various legal dictionaries to define "rebate" as a reduction or repayment against a sum of money, emphasizing that a rebate cannot exceed the amount paid. This interpretation aligns with Rule 12 and Rule 173RH, which govern the rebate of duty paid. The Tribunal rejected the manufacturers' argument that they should be deemed to have paid the full amount of duty due to the Simplified Procedure, clarifying that the rebate must correspond to the actual duty paid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the rebate of duty payable under Notification No. 231/76 cannot exceed the total amount of duty paid. The appeal of the Department was rejected, and the appeal of the manufacturers was allowed to the extent that the rebate should be permitted up to the total duty paid during the two months in question, amounting to Rs. 20,568.86.