2013 (8) TMI 223 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Benefit of exemptions / rebate on export - various incentive schemes - Advance Authorisation for annual requirement or facility under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 Applicability of Notification in the case Held that - Notification 93/2004-Cus. and Not. No. 94/2004-Cus are issued in respect of different export promotion schemes - Since applicant was working under Not. No. 94/2004-Cus., he has to comply with the conditions laid down said notification. The condition no. 8 of said notification is very much applicable in the instant case and the amendment dated 17-5-2005 in Not. No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 has no applicability to the Not. No. 94/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 - Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mihir Textile Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay 1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that exemption/benefit depending upon satisfaction certain conditions cannot be granted unless such conditions are complied with even such conditions are only directory. Hon ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in the case of M/s. Paper Products v. CCE 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that plain and simple meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to - The amendment made in Not. No. 93/2004-Cus. cannot be said to be applicable to Not. No. 94/2004-Cus Revision application rejected Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate of Central Excise duty on exported goods under advance authorization for annual requirement.
2. Correct valuation for rebate claims under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the issue of rebate of Central Excise duty on goods exported under advance authorization for annual requirement. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing non-ferrous products, filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the exports made under specific shipping bills and advance authorizations, stating that Rule 18 facility was not available due to the nature of the exports. The department contended that the rebate was improperly sanctioned, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who ruled in their favor, setting aside the original order. The applicant challenged this decision through a revision application, emphasizing the interpretation of the relevant notifications (Not. No. 93/2004-Cus. and Not. No. 94/2004-Cus.) governing the rebate eligibility.

2. The second issue pertained to the correct valuation for rebate claims under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant argued that the rebate amount should be determined after deducting post-removal expenses from the FOB value, citing relevant provisions and past judgments. The government analyzed the case records and observed that the exports were made under advance authorization for annual requirement, leading to the denial of rebate claims under Rule 18. The Government highlighted the distinction between the notifications and their applicability, emphasizing compliance with the conditions specified in the relevant notification (Not. No. 94/2004-Cus.). Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Government upheld the denial of rebate claims under Rule 18, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application, finding no merit in the applicant's contentions and upholding the order-in-appeal. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the notifications, the conditions for rebate eligibility under different schemes, and the importance of complying with statutory provisions for claiming rebates under the Central Excise Act, 1944.