2013 (4) TMI 156 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Admissibility of rebate claim in the light of the amendments in the Notification No. 43/2002-Customs - applicant has exported goods against the fulfilment of export obligation under Advance Authorization Scheme in terms of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. The rebate claims were rejected for violation of condition (v) of the said Notification. - Held That - applicant has already availed one benefit by counting said exports towards his export obligations. So the authorities are justified in disallowing the benefit of input stage rebate in terms of condition No. (v) of said Notification. While formulating such type of export promotion scheme, the intention of the Government cannot to be deny the benefit of scheme, but at the same time intention cannot be to allow double benefit. Government of India in catena of judgments has held that exporter will be eligible for rebate of duty paid on finished goods, as condition (v) of Notification No puts restriction on input stage rebate only - Government notes that in the case of M/s. Shubhada Polymers Products Pvt. Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 167 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) the said issue was decided by Government vide its Order No. 4-6/2009, dated 16-1-2009 holding that rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of goods exported in discharge of export obligation under DEEC scheme was not admissible in term of condition No. (v) of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., dated 19-4-2002 as amended vide corrigendum dated 29-11-2002. The said notification was replaced by Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 and condition (v) of said notification was also amended. As per amendment dated 29-11-2002 in Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. the exporter cannot claim rebate under Rule 18 of the duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant products. But in the instant case, applicant is claiming rebate on the duty paid as the finished goods which is not contrary to the amended condition (v) of the Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. Hence applicant is entitled for the rebate of duty. - Government notes that the amended condition (v) in both the Customs Notification s i.e. 43/2002-Cus. and 93/2004-Cus. is exactly same - Government finds no infirmity in orders of appellate authority and hence, upholds the same - Revision Applications are rejected being devoid of any merit.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to rebate of excise duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004.
3. Applicability of deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Rebate of Excise Duty Paid on Inputs:
The applicant, M/s. Omkar Textile Mills, claimed a rebate of excise duty paid on Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) used in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid (LABSA), which was exported. The Assistant Commissioner initially sanctioned the rebate claims. However, the department contested this decision, arguing that the rebate was inadmissible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, due to the conditions of the Advance Authorization Scheme.

2. Compliance with Notification No. 93/2004-Cus.:
The core issue was the violation of condition (v) of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., which prohibits availing the rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods when the goods are exported under the Advance Authorization Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department's view, denying the rebate claims. The applicant argued that the condition should only restrict benefits at the time of import and not affect the rebate claims. However, the Government noted that allowing the rebate would result in double benefits, which was not the intention of the Notification. Therefore, the input stage rebate was rightly held inadmissible.

3. Applicability of Deemed Export Benefits:
The applicant contended that neither they nor their supplier, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), availed deemed export benefits. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no documentary evidence to support this claim. The Government concurred, stating that the applicant failed to prove that IOCL did not avail deemed export benefits. Thus, the applicant was not entitled to the rebate benefit under para 8.5 of the Export-Import Policy, which stipulates that rebate is inadmissible if deemed export benefits are availed.

Conclusion:
The Government upheld the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), finding no merit in the applicant's arguments. The rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods was inadmissible due to the conditions of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., and the lack of evidence regarding the non-availment of deemed export benefits by IOCL. The revision applications were rejected, affirming the denial of the rebate claims.