9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 428 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRevision Application - rebate claim Held that - Bill of Export should be filed under the claim of drawback or DEPB. Though Bill of Export is required to be filed for making clearances to SEZ, yet the substantial benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied only for this lapse. Government further observes that Custom Officer of SEZ Unit has endorsed on ARE-1 that the goods have been duly received by them. As the duty paid nature of goods and supply the same to SEZ is not under dispute, the rebate on export of duty paid goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is admissible. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the rebate claim, revision application by revenue rejected
Issues:
Claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without submitting Bill of Export. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding a rebate claim filed by the applicant, a manufacturer of iron pipe fittings, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claim was based on supplying goods to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit. The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claim as the applicant did not submit the Bill of Export along with the claim, citing the requirement under sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 and a Customs Circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal filed by the applicant, leading to a revision application by the department before the Central Government. The department contended that since export entitlements required the submission of Bill of Export as per the relevant rules and circulars, the applicant was not eligible for the rebate without fulfilling this requirement. The respondent argued that the submission of Bill of Export was not mandatory for claiming rebate under Rule 18 and that the relevant rules did not intend to make the submission of Bill of Export compulsory. The Central Government reviewed the case records and observed that the applicant had indeed exported goods to the SEZ unit under a claim of rebate as per Rule 18. The Government noted that the Board's Circular allowed for rebate claims subject to specific conditions. It was further highlighted that the SEZ Rules prescribed procedures for procurements from the Domestic Tariff Area, specifying that DTA could supply goods to SEZ under duty paid goods with a claim of rebate using ARE-1. The Government emphasized that the failure to produce the Bill of Export, as required by the SEZ Rules and Circular, should not lead to the denial of the substantial benefit of the rebate claim. The Government found that the endorsement on ARE-1 by the Customs Officer of the SEZ unit confirmed the receipt of goods, and since the duty paid nature of goods and their supply to the SEZ were undisputed, the rebate claim was deemed admissible. Consequently, the Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the revision application. In conclusion, the Central Government ruled in favor of the applicant, emphasizing that the submission of the Bill of Export was not a mandatory requirement for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the context of supplying goods to an SEZ unit.
|
