2015 (11) TMI 1656 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate - can rebate be claimed for second time? - Held that - the issue involved in the petition for writ is no more res integra in light of law laid down, by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Spentax Industries Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that If the Central Government itself is of the opinion that the rebate is to be allowed on both the forms of excise duties the government is bound thereby and the rule in-question has to interpreted in accord with this understanding of the rule maker itself - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order passed by the revisional authority denying the rebate claim for the second time. The revisional authority upheld the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. The petitioner argued that exporters are entitled to both types of rebates under Rule 18, citing a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case. The court noted that the issue was no longer open to debate based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Spentax Industries Ltd. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and declared the petitioner entitled to the rebate under Rule 18. The judgment relied heavily on the interpretation of Rule 18 and the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the entitlement of exporters to both types of rebates.

This judgment revolves around the interpretation and application of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, concerning the entitlement of exporters to rebates. The petitioner challenged an order denying the rebate claim for the second time, which was upheld by the revisional authority and the appellate authority. The court considered the argument put forth by the petitioner, highlighting the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 18 in a similar case. The court emphasized that exporters are entitled to both types of rebates under Rule 18, not just one, based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and declared the petitioner's entitlement to the rebate under Rule 18. The judgment underscores the significance of legal precedents and the correct interpretation of statutory provisions in resolving disputes related to rebate claims under the Central Excise Rules.

In conclusion, the judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court addressed the issue of rebate entitlement under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The court relied on a Supreme Court decision to establish that exporters are entitled to both types of rebates under Rule 18. By allowing the writ petition, the court overturned the orders passed by the revisional authority and the appellate authority, declaring the petitioner's entitlement to the rebate. This case underscores the importance of legal interpretations and adherence to established precedents in resolving disputes related to rebate claims in the realm of central excise laws.