2009 (12) TMI 680 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate Held that - As per invoice respondents have purchased galvanized wire and they have exported galvanized stitching - they have never declared this raw material in the prescribed Annexure-24 to the department and have never sought the permission for that also - there was some discrepancies in the process of manufacture submitted by the respondent - input/Raw material which was never declared in Annexure-24 to the department can not become eligible for rebate - rebate on the material used by the respondent in the manufacturer of the finished goods is not admissible to the respondents

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claim rejection under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Mis-declaration of raw material description and classification.
- Condonation of delay in filing revision application.
- Admissibility of rebate on material used in manufacturing finished goods.

Analysis:
1. Rebate Claim Rejection: The case involved three revision applications filed against orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Daman. The issue arose when the respondent, an exempted unit manufacturing wire from wire rods, filed rebate claims based on invoices from Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the rebate claim, leading to appeals accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of fulfilling conditions of relevant notifications. However, the applicant Commissioner challenged this decision, alleging that no manufacturing process had been carried out as declared, and mis-declaration of raw material description and classification occurred. The Government observed discrepancies in the raw material declaration and manufacturing process, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders in appeal.

2. Mis-Declaration of Raw Material: The respondent's declaration for availing rebate benefits indicated the use of M S Rods in manufacturing finished goods falling under specific tariff rates. However, discrepancies emerged when it was found that the actual raw material purchased, galvanized wire, was never declared in the prescribed Annexure-24 to the department. This non-disclosure rendered the material ineligible for rebate, as observed by the Government. The mis-declaration of raw material description and classification played a crucial role in the rejection of rebate claims by the authorities.

3. Condonation of Delay: The Government noted that the Commissioner filed the revision application after the stipulated period but requested condonation of delay due to initially filing an appeal before CESTAT. Using powers under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Government condoned the delay and proceeded to consider the revision application on its merits. This decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines while also allowing for reasonable exceptions under specific circumstances.

4. Admissibility of Rebate on Material: The Government's analysis led to the conclusion that the input/raw material not declared in Annexure-24 could not be deemed eligible for rebate. The failure to disclose the actual raw material used in manufacturing the finished goods, coupled with discrepancies in the manufacturing process submitted by the respondent, rendered the rebate on the material inadmissible. Consequently, the impugned orders in appeal were set aside, and the revision applications succeeded, emphasizing the necessity of accurate disclosure and compliance with procedural requirements in claiming rebate benefits.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to rebate claim rejection, mis-declaration of raw material, condonation of delay, and admissibility of rebate on material used in manufacturing finished goods, offering a comprehensive analysis of the legal intricacies involved in the case.