2013 (7) TMI 273 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Drawback of customs portion only and rebate claims for Central Excise duty paid on the goods removed for export - Claimed drawback under All Industry Rate only of Customs portion and no drawback in respect of Central Excise Duty allocation under the All Industry Rate of Drawback has been claimed. - Held that - As per CBEC Circular No. 83/2000-Cus., dated 16-10-2000, wherein it is clarified that where only customs portion of duties is claimed as per the All Industry Rate of Drawback, Rule 57F(14) does not come in the way of admitting refund of unutilized credit of Central Excise/Countervailing Duty paid on inputs used in the products exported - allowing rebate of duty paid on finished exported goods and drawback of customs portion will not amount to double benefit - sanctioned rebate claims to the applicant-party as per the case of Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2003 (1) TMI 134 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA . Decided in favor of Assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claims due to simultaneous claim of duty drawback.
2. Alleged contravention of natural justice by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Applicability of specific notifications and circulars regarding drawback and rebate claims.
4. Previous judgments and circulars cited in support of the applicant's case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claims Due to Simultaneous Claim of Duty Drawback:
The core issue in this case revolves around the rejection of rebate claims filed by the applicant on the grounds that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, does not permit simultaneous claims of duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, and rebate of duty under Rule 18. The original adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims on this basis, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The applicant contended that they had only claimed the customs portion of the drawback and not the central excise duty portion, arguing that this should not preclude them from claiming the rebate.

2. Alleged Contravention of Natural Justice by the Commissioner (Appeals):
The applicant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to discuss the detailed submissions made during the personal hearing and did not provide a speaking order explaining why the submissions were not acceptable. This, according to the applicant, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.

3. Applicability of Specific Notifications and Circulars:
The applicant referred to several notifications and circulars to support their case:
- Notification No. 36/2005-Cus. (N.T.) and 81/2006-Cus. (N.T.): These notifications provide separate drawback rates depending on whether the Cenvat credit facility has been availed.
- CBEC Circular 24/2001-Cus. and 83/2000-Cus.: These circulars clarify that claiming only the customs portion of the drawback does not preclude a refund of unutilized credit of central excise duty.
- Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.): These notifications govern the rebate claims for central excise duty paid on exported goods.
- CBEC Circular No. 16/2009-Cus.: This circular clarifies that double benefits would only arise if both the central excise portion of the drawback and the rebate of terminal excise duty were claimed, which is not possible under the mentioned notifications.

4. Previous Judgments and Circulars Cited:
The applicant cited several judgments to support their case:
- Associated Dye-Stuff Industries v. CCE, Ahmedabad
- Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd.
- Esteem Services v. UOI
- CCE, Kanpur v. Meghdoot Pistons (P) Ltd.

These judgments were referenced to argue that the simultaneous claim of customs portion of the drawback and rebate of central excise duty does not amount to double benefits and should be permissible.

Judgment Summary:
The Government carefully reviewed the case records, the impugned orders, and the grounds of the revision application. It was noted that the applicants had exported goods on payment of central excise duty and claimed only the customs portion of the drawback. The Government observed that there was no evidence to contradict the applicant's contention and that the applicable notifications and circulars did not debar the rebate claim in such circumstances.

The Government concluded that allowing the rebate of duty paid on exported goods and the drawback of the customs portion does not result in double benefits. This view was supported by previous judgments and circulars. Consequently, the Government set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the original authority for sanctioning the rebate, provided the applicant had only availed the customs portion of the drawback and the claim was otherwise in order.

Conclusion:
The revision applications were disposed of, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for further action in accordance with the Government's findings. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the specific provisions of the relevant notifications and circulars.

← Previous Next →