2012 (10) TMI 904 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim export respondent had cleared the goods from their factory for export describing the same as menthol powder alleged that goods exported were not the same, which were cleared by the respondent from their factory after payment of duty Held that - Respondent have themselves prepared and signed the Commercial Invoice under which Menthol Powder-97% BP/USP were exported vide said Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading - respondent has not been able to meet the mandatory requirement of claiming rebate that the same goods which have been manufactured, suffered duty, have actually been exported - respondent has failed to establish that they have exported the very same duty paid goods vide shipping bill as cleared by ARE-1, hence, rebate claims not admissible

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in description of exported goods compared to goods cleared for export
- Eligibility of rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Compliance with export regulations and documentation
- Impact of not possessing required drug license for manufacturing specific goods

Analysis:
1. Discrepancy in Description of Exported Goods: The case involves a discrepancy where the goods exported were described differently from the goods cleared for export. The respondent exported goods described as "Menthol Powder-BP/USP" while initially clearing them as "menthol powder." The government noted this inconsistency and deemed the rebate claim inadmissible due to the failure to export the same goods as cleared.

2. Eligibility of Rebate Claim: The respondent claimed rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the government emphasized that the rebate sanctioning authority must ensure that only the goods actually manufactured are exported. Since the respondent did not possess the required drug license for manufacturing specific goods, their claim was rejected for not meeting the mandatory requirement of exporting the same goods that were manufactured and cleared.

3. Compliance with Export Regulations: The respondent argued that minor discrepancies in the description of goods should not affect their rebate claim. They highlighted that all export documents were verified by customs authorities before export, indicating the goods were not diverted domestically. Despite this argument, the government upheld the original order, emphasizing the importance of accurately matching export descriptions with cleared goods.

4. Impact of Not Possessing Required Drug License: The respondent's lack of a drug license to manufacture specific goods played a crucial role in the judgment. The government pointed out that the respondent admitted to not having the necessary license for manufacturing certain grades of Menthol Powder. This non-compliance further weakened their position in claiming the rebate, as the exported goods did not align with the required manufacturing standards.

5. Precedent and Final Decision: The government distinguished a previous order where a different scenario allowed for rebate due to specific circumstances. In this case, the absence of a drug license for manufacturing Menthol Powder BP/USP led to the rejection of the rebate claim. Consequently, the government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the original decision, ruling in favor of the revision application due to the failure of the respondent to prove the export of the same duty-paid goods as cleared.