9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 672 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate - goods were cleared for export alleged that no mention of any notification under which the goods were cleared by the respondent Held that - Respondent was clearing all their goods for home consumption under Notification No. 30/2004. As per Section 5A(1) the respondent was not required to pay duty after 15-5-2005 as they were working under Notification No. 30/2004 - respondent were not supposed to pay duty, hence no rebate was admissible to them - respondent has paid duty which has become a deposit with the Govt. which has to be paid back to the respondent in the manner they have paid at the time of clearance of goods - revision application succeeds
Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate claim by a 100% EOU unit. 2. Eligibility for rebate claim on duty paid for export consignment. 3. Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004 and Notification No. 29/2004. 4. Condonation of delay in filing revision application. 5. Requirement of duty payment for goods cleared for export under relevant notifications. 6. Documentation and declaration requirements for availing duty exemptions. Analysis: 1. The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of a rebate claim by a 100% EOU unit that had de-bonded and transitioned to a regular DTA unit. The Commissioner contended that 100% EOUs are governed by separate provisions and are not entitled to rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner argued that the unit had availed exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 for home consumption, making the duty payment for export consignment unwarranted. 2. The assessee, on the other hand, argued that they had transitioned to a DTA unit post-debonding and were operating under the provisions of Notification No. 30/2004 for domestic sales and Notification No. 29/2004 for export sales. They claimed that they had the right to choose between the two notifications and had correctly paid duty on the exported goods, making them eligible for rebate as per established legal precedents and Circulars issued by the C.B.E. & C. 3. The Government observed that the respondent was not required to pay duty for goods cleared for export under Notification No. 30/2004 post the insertion of Section 5A(1) in the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, there was ambiguity regarding whether the respondent had declared the notification under which the goods were cleared for export. The Government found that the duty paid by the respondent was not required, and therefore, no rebate was admissible. The duty paid was considered a deposit to be refunded to the respondent. 4. The Government further noted that the respondent had been operating under Notification No. 30/2004 for home consumption, and as per Section 5A(1), they were not obligated to pay duty post the specified date. The absence of a clear declaration regarding the notification under which the goods were cleared for export led to the conclusion that the duty payment was unnecessary, thus rendering the rebate inapplicable. 5. The Government, therefore, set aside the order-in-appeal and ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the refund of the duty paid in the manner it was originally deposited. The revision application was disposed of accordingly, with the Government's decision based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and the legal obligations of the respondent post the transition from a 100% EOU to a DTA unit.
|
