2012 (10) TMI 985 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rejection of partial rebate claim - excess quantity of inputs which were not actually used - Held that - The applicable Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 provides for rebate of whole of duty paid on excisable goods/materials used in the manufacture of export goods. As per labels the quantity of inputs shown as actually consumed is less than the quantity of raw materials claimed by the exporter to have been used. Since the quantity as per label is the actual quantity consumed, there is no reason to claim consumption of additional quantity. - rebate claim of duty paid on quantity of inputs consumed as per label is legal and proper in accordance with the provisions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate of input central excise duty on exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a pharmaceutical company, filed for a rebate of input central excise duty for goods exported under ARE-2, claiming excess quantity of inputs used than what was actually consumed. The authorities issued show cause notices proposing rejection of the excess rebate claimed. The adjudicating authority allowed rebate on actual inputs consumed but rejected the claim for excess quantity.

2. The applicants appealed to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the Orders-in-Original. The appeal was rejected, leading the applicants to file revision applications before the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing various grounds for challenge.

3. The common grounds for revision included contentions that the authorities erred in rejecting the rebate claim based on natural process loss, that the best system for rebate calculation was based on actual input-output ratio, and that the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not correctly applied by the authorities.

4. The Government reviewed the case records and found that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had sanctioned rebate on duty paid for actual inputs used in manufacturing exported goods but rejected the claim for excess unused inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The applicants argued that the actual quantity of inputs consumed was more than what was reflected on the labels, but the Government agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the rebate claim based on the quantity of inputs consumed as per label was legal and proper under the applicable Notification.

5. Consequently, the Government found no issues with the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and upheld them, rejecting the revision applications for lacking merit. The decision was made after considering the arguments presented by the applicants and the relevant legal provisions and case laws cited during the proceedings.