2012 (6) TMI 777 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - whether the rebate Duties actually paid at the time of de-bonding of a 100% EOU Unit on the goods exported by applicant can be granted under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/04-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Held that - When statutory provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 are read in proper perspective along with instructions contained in Chapter 8 (Para 8.4) of C.B.E. & C. s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions then it becomes clear that rebate of only that much amount of Central Excise Duty is admissible as indicated in the respective ARE-1s and is (actually) paid at the time of clearance of impugned export goods which are to be exported within six months of the date of such clearances unless specific extension/permission is granted by the jurisdictional Commissioner. All the rebate claims under reference are to be considered within the ambit and scope of above said provisions of law. In this case matter, Government is in conformity with the views of lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) that because the duties paid at the time of de-bonding were duties of nature of Customs Duty including CVD, the applicant could have made a Drawback claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of relevant Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995. Plain reading of statutory provisions of Acts/Rules as clarified vide relevant Notification/C.B.E. & C. Circulars are strictly bindings on the authorities constituted and working under those statute, finds the impugned orders-in-appeal as perfectly legal and proper and same are therefore upheld. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate claims on duty paid at the time of de-bonding for export goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.).
3. Denial of rebate claims for duties paid on de-bonding of 100% EOU Unit.
4. Dispute regarding duties paid at the time of conversion to DTA Unit.
5. Compliance with statutory provisions for rebate claims.

Issue 1: Admissibility of rebate claims on duty paid at the time of de-bonding for export goods:
The revision applications were filed by M/s. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. against orders-in-appeal regarding rebate claims. The applicant exported de-bonded duty paid goods after applying for de-bonding and paying assessed duty. The rebate claims were partially sanctioned, leading to appeals and subsequent rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant contended that duty payment at de-bonding does not equate to goods' clearance, citing relevant judgments and export documents. The Central Government noted factual details but ultimately upheld the denial of rebate claims for duties paid at de-bonding.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.):
The respondent department held that rebate for duties paid at conversion from 100% EOU to DTA Unit is not admissible under Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of rebate for duties paid at conversion. The applicant argued that interpretations of provisions do not bar rebate claims for duties paid at any previous times. The Central Government, aligning with lower authorities, emphasized that only duties paid at the time of export clearance are admissible for rebate under the relevant provisions.

Issue 3: Denial of rebate claims for duties paid on de-bonding of 100% EOU Unit:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected rebate claims based on Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C.'s Central Excise Manual, which links rebate to duties indicated in ARE-1. The applicant's reliance on a specific judgment was deemed irrelevant to the case. The Central Government concurred with the lower authorities, emphasizing that duties paid at de-bonding were not eligible for rebate under the applicable rules and notifications.

Issue 4: Dispute regarding duties paid at the time of conversion to DTA Unit:
The applicant's claims for rebate on duties paid at conversion to DTA Unit were denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on statutory provisions. The applicant stressed that the duty paid at de-bonding should not affect rebate eligibility. However, the Central Government upheld the denial, citing the specific provisions and instructions governing such rebate claims.

Issue 5: Compliance with statutory provisions for rebate claims:
The Central Government, after considering written submissions and lower authorities' orders, found the impugned orders-in-appeal legally sound. Emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions and relevant judgments, the Central Government rejected all revision applications for lacking merit. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were cited to support the decision, reinforcing the binding nature of statutory provisions on authorities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, interpretations of relevant rules and notifications, and the final decision by the Central Government regarding the admissibility of rebate claims on duties paid at de-bonding and conversion to DTA Unit.