2015 (8) TMI 1325 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Whether the rebate of duty and duty draw back can be claimed simultaneously? - N/N.68/2011-Cus. (N.T.) dated 20-9-2011 - Held that - decision in the case of AMRIT PAPER Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE LUDHIANA 2006 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon where it was held that primacy to a Notification cannot be given over Rules as such interpretation will render statutory provisions in Rules nugatory. Government holds that the instant rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods are not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rule 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 6-9-2004 when exporter has availed higher rate of duty drawback of Customs and Central Excise in respect of exported goods - rebate of duty and duty draw back cannot be claimed simultaneously - application rejected - decided against applicant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate claims in case of availing duty drawback and Cenvat credit simultaneously.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed against the rejection of rebate claims for duty paid on exported goods. The applicant claimed that they are eligible for both rebate duty and duty drawback simultaneously. The applicant argued that they had not availed Cenvat credit and had only claimed duty drawback under the customs portion, making them entitled to claim rebate of duty. The government examined the case records and submissions to decide on the admissibility of the rebate claims.

The government first analyzed the definition of drawback, which is the rebate of duty chargeable on materials used in the manufacture of exported goods. Referring to Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the government noted that the applicant cannot claim rebate on duty paid at both input and finished goods stages simultaneously. The government cited a judgment by the Bombay High Court to support this interpretation. The applicant had paid duty from Cenvat credit availed on capital goods and had availed a higher rate of duty drawback, making them ineligible for rebate as it would amount to double benefit.

Further, the government referred to circulars clarifying that no double benefit is available when only the customs portion of the drawback is claimed. The government emphasized that allowing rebate along with the customs portion of drawback would lead to double benefit, which is not permissible under the statutory provisions. The government also highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions over notifications and case laws, stating that the claimed rebate of duty paid on exported goods is not admissible in this case.

In conclusion, the government held that the rebate claims for duty paid on exported goods are not admissible when the exporter has availed a higher rate of duty drawback of customs and central excise. Therefore, the impugned order-in-appeal rejecting the rebate claims was upheld, and the revision application was dismissed for lack of merit.