2013 (7) TMI 884 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Export of Paclitaxel Injection (of different strength) containing alcohol - export product is non-excisable and applicant has not followed procedure/condition laid down in Not. No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Held that - Central Government may, where any goods are exported, by notification, grant, rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and rebate shall be subject to such condition or limitations if any, and fulfilment of such procedure as may be specified in the Notification. It is quite clear that rebate of duty paid on materials is to be granted under Rule 18 of CER, 2002 read with Not. No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under said rule. - applicant has not followed the statutory provision of Not. No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 which is admitted by him and therefore input rebate claim is not admissible. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Section 11B(2)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of non-excisable medicaments. Rejection of refund claim by the authorities. Applicability of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 on export of non-excisable goods. Admissibility of input rebate on exported non-excisable goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a refund claim by M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for duty paid inputs used in the export of non-excisable medicaments under Section 11B(2)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant exported Paclitaxel Injection under State Excise supervision, claiming refund on inputs not covered under Central Excise Law due to containing narcotic drugs or chemicals. The authorities rejected the claim citing lack of provision for refund filing under Section 11B(2)(a) and issued a show cause notice proposing rejection.

On appeal, the Commissioner upheld the rejection, leading the applicant to file a revision application before the Central Government. The applicant argued that duty refund on exported goods is a standard practice, regardless of the nature of goods. They also challenged the grounds taken by the lower Appellate Authority, highlighting discrepancies in the show cause notice.

The Central Government analyzed the case, noting that the export product fell under State Excise jurisdiction and the applicant had not followed the procedure specified in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The Government emphasized Rule 18 of CER 2002, granting rebate on materials used in exported goods subject to specified conditions. The applicant's claim that the notification did not apply to non-excisable products was deemed erroneous.

Further, the Government referred to CBEC Manual provisions stating that input rebate can be claimed on export of all finished goods, excisable or non-excisable. The applicant's reliance on case laws was dismissed as inapplicable due to procedural non-compliance. Ultimately, the Government upheld the rejection, finding no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and rejecting the revision application for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the statutory provisions governing duty rebate on exported goods, emphasizing compliance with specified procedures. The decision underscored the importance of following prescribed rules for claiming input rebate on non-excisable goods and upheld the rejection of the applicant's refund claim.