2012 (11) TMI 247 - CGOVT - Customs

Rejection of rebate claim - exports made under DEEC Advance License for annual requirement under Notification No. 94/2004-Cus., - Held that - Since non-availment of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is mentioned as condition under Customs Notification, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the rebate claim as per law in view of the exclusion of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 vide condition No. 8 of Notification, 94/04-Cus., - no infirmity in the orders-in-appeal appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 when duty-paid goods are exported in discharge of export obligation under advance licence for annual requirement in terms of Custom Notification No. 94/04-Cus., dated 10-9-2004.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The case involves 12 revision applications filed by M/s. Sonal Garments India Pvt. Ltd. against orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) Bangalore. The applicants are engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments and filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The dispute arose when the original adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims, leading to subsequent appeals and revision applications.

2. Grounds of Revision:
The revision applications were filed on various grounds, including contentions that there was no simultaneous availment of benefits, misplacement of reliance on circulars, and the distinction between customs notifications and central excise authorities' determinations. The applicants argued that they were only claiming rebate on duty paid for export goods and not on inputs, emphasizing compliance with Rule 18 conditions.

3. Legal Interpretation:
The main issue revolved around the eligibility for rebate under Rule 18 when goods were exported to fulfill export obligations under an advance licence. The Customs Notification No. 94/04-Cus. was central to the dispute, as it barred applicants from availing complete facility under Rule 18. The government analyzed the conditions of the notification and the implications for rebate claims under the Central Excise Rules.

4. Case Laws and Interpretation:
The government addressed the applicant's reliance on case laws such as Banswara Syntex Ltd. and clarified the applicability of different notifications and provisions. The government highlighted the specific conditions and restrictions outlined in the relevant notifications and emphasized the exclusion of rebate under Rule 18 in cases where exports were made under the Advance Licence Scheme.

5. Decision and Ruling:
After careful consideration of the submissions and relevant legal provisions, the government upheld the impugned orders-in-appeal, rejecting the revision applications as devoid of merit. The ruling was based on the clear prohibition under the law for claiming rebate of duty under Rule 18 when exports were made under the Advance Licence Scheme as per the Customs Notification No. 94/04-Cus.

6. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the judgment reaffirmed the legal interpretation of the notifications and rules governing rebate claims in the context of export obligations under advance licences. The decision provided a detailed analysis of the conditions, case laws, and legal provisions to support the ruling against the revision applications filed by the applicants.