2012 (10) TMI 582 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 100% EOU export - applicant has cleared certain export consignment on payment of duty under ARE - goods exported from a 100% EOU unit were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. - Held that - Amount so paid by applicant is a voluntary deposit made by respondent on their volition with the department and same is to be returned in the way it was initially paid - said excess paid amount may be allowed to be re-credited in their cenvat credit account

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a 100% EOU can pay Central Excise Duty on export goods and claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation of Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in conjunction with Notification No. 24/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003.

Analysis:
1. The revision applications were filed by M/s. Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Maharashtra against Orders-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original related to the rejection of rebate claims for goods exported from a 100% EOU unit. The dispute arose as the department contended that duty paid on exported goods was without authority of law due to exemption under Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. The applicant argued that they were entitled to pay duty and claim rebate on exports. The lower authorities rejected the rebate claim, leading to the current appeal.

2. The main contention revolved around whether a 100% EOU could pay Central Excise Duty on export goods and claim rebate under Rule 18. The Government noted that the exemption under Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. was absolute and unconditional for goods manufactured in an EOU, exempting them from duty. Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 further clarified that if an exemption had been granted absolutely, the manufacturer shall not pay duty on such goods. The Government referred to previous orders and clarifications supporting the view that EOUs do not have the option to pay duty and claim rebate under such circumstances.

3. The Government highlighted that the exemption under the said notification did not have any conditions for seeking exemption in export matters. The only proviso was that the exemption did not apply if the goods were brought to any other place in India, indicating that the exemption was not available for goods cleared for home consumption. Therefore, the Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. was absolute and unconditional, aligning with Section 5A(1A) of the Act, which prohibited the payment of duty on goods granted absolute exemption.

4. In conclusion, the Government directed that the excess amount voluntarily paid by the applicant should be re-credited in their cenvat credit account, as it was a deposit made with the department. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, and the revision application was partially allowed based on the legal provisions and interpretations discussed.

Judgment:
The revision applications were disposed of by allowing the re-credit of the excess paid amount in the cenvat credit account, in line with the legal provisions and interpretations provided regarding the exemption under Notification No. 24/2003-C.E. and Section 5A(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.