2013 (2) TMI 136 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate Claim Exporter filed rebate claim on duty paid goods manufactured by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Jamshedpur - Filed the necessary mandatory export documents - certain discrepancies were found in these documents - Assessee s contention is that since the said vehicles were duty paid nature hence they are eligible for rebate benefit under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Department s contention is that the applicant had only produced the sale-cum delivery challan issued in their name by the Regional Sales Office of M/s. Tata Motors which did not give any details of duty paid either on the chassis or the vehicles and that cannot be considered as issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Held that - chassis was cleared from factory of manufacture on payment of duty to the body builders/job workers who availed the input stage credit and performed some manufacturing activities on the said chassis resulting to fully fabricated vehicles (FBV) which was transferred to Regional Sales Office (RSO) of Tata Motors. - Assessee had himself admitted that they have claimed the rebate only on the duty paid by M/s. Tata Motors Limited at the time of clearance of the chassis. As per para 1.5(iii) Chapter 8 Part V of the C.B.E. & C. Manual the rebate cannot be claimed on duty paid excisable material (input) (here chassis) used in the manufacture of export goods where facility of input stage credit is availed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In the instant case the Cenvat credit on chassis part is already availed by the job workers which, in case of rebate, will amount to double benefit. Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 sale-cum-delivery Challan submitted by applicant cannot be treated as Invoice issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Moreover, the said Sale-cum-Delivery Challan issued by Tata Motor Sales Office does not contain the details of duty payment either on chassis or vehicle. As such the duty paid character of exported goods is not proved. Therefore, rebate claim is not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 Revision application rejected Against the assessee.

Issues Involved
1. Eligibility for rebate claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004.
2. Proper documentation for rebate claims.
3. Certification of duty payment by the proper authority.
4. Double benefit due to Cenvat credit availed by job workers.
5. Validity of sale-cum-delivery challans as proof of duty payment.

Detailed Analysis

1. Eligibility for Rebate Claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004:
The applicant contended that they were eligible for rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, as they had purchased fully fabricated vehicles from M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., and exported the same. The department argued that the applicant did not provide proper invoices showing duty payment, and the sale-cum-delivery challan did not contain details of duty paid, thus failing to meet the requirements under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

2. Proper Documentation for Rebate Claims:
The applicant submitted various documents, including ARE-1 forms, excise challans, and sale-cum-delivery challans. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies, such as the absence of duplicate copies of invoices and the lack of self-attestation on shipping bills. The sale-cum-delivery challan did not provide details of duty paid, making it insufficient to prove the duty-paid nature of the goods.

3. Certification of Duty Payment by the Proper Authority:
The applicant argued that the Superintendent I/C of Jamshedpur Range was the proper officer to certify duty payment, as the duty was paid by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. The department contended that the Superintendent at Jamshedpur was not the proper authority to certify duty payment because the vehicles were cleared from job workers' factories, not directly from Tata Motors. The Government noted that the certification by the Jamshedpur Superintendent was invalid due to the Cenvat credit already availed by job workers.

4. Double Benefit Due to Cenvat Credit Availed by Job Workers:
The department argued that allowing the rebate would result in a double benefit, as job workers had already availed Cenvat credit on the chassis. The Government observed that the Cenvat credit on the chassis had indeed been availed by job workers, and granting the rebate would amount to double benefit, which is not permissible.

5. Validity of Sale-cum-Delivery Challans as Proof of Duty Payment:
The applicant relied on sale-cum-delivery challans issued by Tata Motors' Regional Sales Office. The Government noted that these challans could not be treated as invoices under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as they did not contain details of duty payment. Consequently, the duty-paid character of the exported goods was not established, making the rebate claim inadmissible.

Conclusion
The Government upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding no infirmity in it. The rebate claims were rejected due to insufficient documentation, improper certification of duty payment, and the potential for double benefit due to Cenvat credit availed by job workers. The revision application was rejected as devoid of merit.

← Previous Next →