2012 (8) TMI 756 - HC - Central Excise

Whether Tribunal was justified in ignoring the two Notifications on which reliance is placed by the revenue Held that - Appeal involves the interpretation of the aforesaid two Notifications - As the order relate to among other things, the determination of question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise , it is the Apex Court alone which is competent to adjudicate the said dispute. The jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted - appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to Tribunal's order granting relief to the assessee based on specific notifications.
2. Interpretation of Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules regarding removal of materials for export.
3. Dispute over entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 22/2003 and 43/2001.
4. Questions of law regarding CESTAT's decisions on various legal provisions and notifications.
5. Jurisdictional issue concerning the interpretation of notifications and excise duty rate determination.

Analysis:

1. The appeal before the High Court involved a challenge by the revenue against the Tribunal's order that granted relief to the assessee based on Notification No. 43/2001 and 22/2003. The Tribunal found that the assessee had removed goods to an EOU/exporter under CT-3 Certificate, and the user industry followed the prescribed procedure outlined in the notifications.

2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal held that the rule allows for the removal of materials without duty payment for use in goods intended for export, irrespective of whether the goods were sent directly from the manufacturer or any other premises. This interpretation led to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to the benefit under Rule 19(2).

3. The revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 22/2003 and 43/2001. However, the Tribunal, relying on Rule 19(2), held in favor of the assessee. The dispute centered on whether the assessee complied with the legal provisions and whether the benefit of cenvat credit was rightfully allowed.

4. Various questions of law were raised, including the necessity of goods being procured only from the manufacturer, compliance with Rule 3(5) of the Central Excise Rules, and the eligibility for benefits under the mentioned notifications. The Tribunal's decision to allow the refund rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) was also scrutinized.

5. The High Court, after considering the issues, concluded that the interpretation of the notifications and the determination of excise duty rates fell within the jurisdiction of the Apex Court. As such, the High Court rejected the appeal, indicating that the dispute required adjudication by the Apex Court, thereby reserving the revenue's right to approach the higher court for further resolution.