2013 (4) TMI 740 - HC - Central Excise

petitioner had used both duty paid as well as duty free inputs in the manufacture of exported goods without establishing that only the duty paid inputs were used so not entitled for rebate of duty.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of rebate claim by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
2. Compliance with conditions No.1 & 2 of Notification dated 6.9.2004 for rebate eligibility.

Issue 1: Dismissal of Rebate Claim
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing vegetable oil and its by-products, filed a rebate claim of Rs. 9,49,776 for duty paid on inputs used in exporting De-oiled cake. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the rebate, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later disallowed it, ordering recovery with interest. The petitioner's Revision against this was dismissed by respondent no.1.

Issue 2: Compliance with Conditions for Rebate Eligibility
The petitioner argued that rebate cannot be disallowed for non-observance of conditions No.1 & 2 of the Notification dated 6.9.2004, claiming they are not mandatory. However, the respondents contended that non-compliance with required conditions justified the denial of rebate.

The Central Excise Rules 2002, specifically Rule 18, allow for rebate of duty on exported goods subject to specified conditions. Notification No.21/2004 CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 details conditions for filing rebate, including filing a declaration and verification of input-output ratio. The petitioner failed to fulfill these requirements, leading to disallowance of rebate.

The order passed by respondent no.1 highlighted the petitioner's failure to comply with conditions No.1 & 2, emphasizing the necessity of filing a declaration for verification of input-output ratio before export. The respondent noted that the petitioner used both duty paid and duty-free inputs without establishing the exclusive use of duty paid inputs in exported goods, rendering the rebate inadmissible.

The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's failure to meet the necessary conditions of the Notification and demonstrate eligibility for duty rebate justified the denial of the claim. Despite citing a Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner's non-compliance with essential requirements led to the dismissal of the petition, as the petitioner failed to prove eligibility for the rebate.

In conclusion, the court found no basis to interfere with the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the Writ Petition due to the petitioner's failure to satisfy the conditions for rebate eligibility as per the Notification.