2013 (1) TMI 729 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - certain conditions/procedures of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) were not fulfilled - the rebate claims do not fall under jurisdiction of the original authority - Held that - applicant got the goods processed from a job worker/processor, whose factory falls within jurisdiction of original authority. Further, the applicant vide letter dated 20-5-2009, filed the declaration, including details of input-output norms and disclosing the fact they are getting their goods manufactured on job-work basis from processor M/s. Jyoti Overseas Ltd. Government also observes that if the goods is being processed at job-worker s place, then any verification of input-output ratio if required to be caused, can be caused by the jurisdictional authority only. In this case, the processor s factory premise fall within jurisdiction of original authority. Under such circumstances, it is not logical to hold that input stage rebate cannot be filed by the applicant with the authority under whose jurisdiction job work s unit falls. - In this case the applicant exported the goods directly from their factory and factory of applicant as well as job worker are located in the jurisdiction of same Central Excise Division. Therefore, rebate claim are rightly filed with said Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Applicant had earlier filed declaration on 20-5-2009, decision on which was not taken by the jurisdictional authority. There is no allegation that any other condition of the said Notification was also not complied with. The department neither approved or rejected the said declaration. Further, it has been laid down in the C.B.E. & C. Central Excise Manual, Chapter 8, part V para 3.2 that for the sake of transparency and convenience input-output norms notified under the Export Import Policy may be accepted by the department unless there are specific reasons for variation, w.r.t. declaration dated 20-5-2009 filed by the applicant. The input rebate claim can therefore be considered for sanction as per relevant SION norms notified in the FTP. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Indore, engaged in exporting goods, who filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Pithampur, citing non-compliance with conditions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and lack of jurisdiction. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to a revision application before the Central Government.

The applicant argued that they fulfilled all conditions of the notification, including lodging the rebate claims with the appropriate authority, as the goods were processed by a job-worker under the jurisdiction of the original authority. They emphasized providing raw materials and processing details to the job-worker, meeting the requirements of the notification.

The applicant contended that they disclosed input details to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, submitted all necessary documents, and cited relevant case laws supporting their position. The applicant's compliance with input-output norms and submission of duty paid purchase invoices were highlighted to support their claims.

Upon reviewing the case records and orders, the Government noted that the rejection was based on the applicant's failure to comply with certain conditions of the notification and jurisdictional issues. The Government analyzed the provisions regarding jurisdiction and declaration filing requirements, emphasizing the role of the factory of manufacture and the processing location.

The Government observed that the applicant exported goods directly from their factory, which was within the jurisdiction of the same Central Excise Division as the job-worker's unit. Therefore, the rebate claims were appropriately filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.

Regarding the approval of input-output ratio, the Government noted that the applicant had filed a declaration for verification, which was not processed by the jurisdictional authority. Considering the transparency and convenience principles, the Government directed the original authority to sanction the rebate claim if all other conditions of the notification were met.

In conclusion, the Government set aside the impugned orders and directed the original authority to sanction the rebate claim if all conditions of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) were satisfied, disposing of the revision applications accordingly.