2011 (1) TMI 814 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Exemption - Under Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Govt. observes that rebate/drawback etc. are export-oriented schemes and unduly restricted and technical interpretation of procedure etc. is to be avoided in order not to defeat the very purpose of such schemes which serve as export incentive to boost export and earn foreign exchange and in case the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical breaches - The Apex Court in the Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 -TMI - 44012 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in observing that once a view is taken that the party would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when they could have done so, had elapsed. Thus, Govt. observes that the rebate of Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid on inputs/materials used in the manufacture of exported goods is admissible to the applicants under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 provided no cenvat credit or drawback is availed by the applicants. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rebate of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on inputs used in manufacturing exported goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004.
3. Applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Clarifications by CBEC and relevant case laws.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rebate of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on Inputs Used in Manufacturing Exported Goods:
The core issue in these revision applications is whether the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid on imported inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods is rebatable under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The applicants, M/s. Om Sons Cookware Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries, and M/s. Dharam Industries, claimed rebates which were initially sanctioned but later contested by the jurisdiction commissioner. The commissioner argued that CVD was not specified in the notification, thus not eligible for rebate.

2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004:
Rule 18 allows for the rebate of duty paid on exported goods and on materials used in their manufacture. The government clarified that the term "duty" in this context includes CVD, based on a harmonious reading of the rules and supporting CBEC Circular No. 83/2000-Cus. The notification was amended to include CVD explicitly, but this amendment was deemed clarificatory and thus retrospective, aligning with the principle established in the case of M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India.

3. Applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, particularly Rule 3(vii), allow manufacturers to utilize Cenvat credit of CVD paid on imported inputs for paying excise duty on final products. If the credit remains unutilized, it can be refunded under Rule 5, subject to conditions specified by the Central Government. This mechanism supports the applicants' claims for rebates on CVD paid on inputs used in manufacturing exported goods.

4. Clarifications by CBEC and Relevant Case Laws:
CBEC Circular No. 83/2000-Cus. and various case laws, including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CCE, Gurgaon v. Simplex Pharma (P) Ltd., support the rebate of CVD. The High Court ruled that if the eligibility for Cenvat credit on CVD is undisputed, the applicant is entitled to a refund under Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This judgment, along with others like the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Belapur Sugar & Allied Inds. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, reinforces the applicants' entitlement to rebates on CVD.

Conclusion:
The government concluded that the rebate of CVD paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods is admissible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), provided no Cenvat credit or drawback is availed by the applicants. Consequently, the impugned orders-in-appeal were set aside, and the revision applications were allowed. The judgment emphasizes a liberal interpretation of export-oriented schemes to avoid defeating their purpose of boosting exports and earning foreign exchange.

← Previous Next →