2013 (9) TMI 769 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate Claim under Rule 18 of the CE Rules - Assessee were engaged in the manufacturing and export of PR woven sack/bag Held that - The applicant have availed customs portion of All Industry Rate of Drawback when Cenvat facility had been availed, as evident from copies of Shipping Bills - Copies of Shipping Bills show that the applicant had claimed drawback @ 2.6% with value cap of Rs. 1.8/unit under the heading Drawback under Cenvat facility had been availed - the applicant had recovered all the input stage taxes in the form of Cenvat credit for excise portion and Drawback of customs portion - But the applicant was claiming rebate of duty paid on final finished product. The statutory provision makes it quite clear that benefit of Drawback and input stage rebate, both were not available simultaneously - the applicant claiming rebate of duty paid on finished goods and not on inputs and hence, their claim was not hit by limitation provided in Chapter 8 Part V of C.B.E. & C. Manual of Supplementary Instruction - As such, these rebate claims cannot be denied on this ground also Order set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate claims rejection based on non-mentioning of Education Cess and SHE Cess on export documents
- Claim of Drawback and availing of Cenvat facility
- Condonation of delay in filing Revision Application

Analysis:
1. Rebate Claims Rejection: The case involved M/s. L.K. Mehta Polymers Ltd. filing rebate claims for duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue arose when Show Cause Notices were issued proposing to reject the rebate claims due to the absence of Education Cess and SHE Cess on the export documents. The authorities contended that the applicant had also claimed Drawback of customs duty without providing evidence of payment of customs duty on inputs used in manufacturing the export goods. However, the applicant argued that the non-mentioning of Education Cess and SHE Cess was a procedural lapse and provided evidence of payment through Excise Invoices and account entries. The government, after reviewing the records, acknowledged the procedural lapse but emphasized that export benefits should not be denied for technical errors if substantive conditions are met.

2. Claim of Drawback and Cenvat Facility: The applicant had availed the customs portion of All Industry Rate Drawback under the condition that Cenvat facility had been utilized. The authorities raised concerns about the simultaneous claim of Drawback and input stage rebate, citing statutory provisions that disallow both benefits together. However, the government noted that the applicant was claiming rebate on the duty paid for final finished products, not on inputs, thus not conflicting with the limitation on simultaneous benefits. The government referred to the C.B.E. & C. Manual of Supplementary Instruction to support the decision that the rebate claims were valid based on the specific circumstances of the case.

3. Condonation of Delay: The government addressed the issue of the Revision Application being filed three days beyond the stipulated period. The applicant explained the delay due to holidays and provided a Speed Post date as evidence. After considering the explanation, the government granted condonation of the three-day delay, allowing the Revision Applications to be reviewed on their merits. Ultimately, the government set aside the impugned orders and allowed the Revision Applications, ruling in favor of the applicant based on the detailed analysis of the issues presented.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal arguments, procedural considerations, and substantive grounds on which the government rendered its decision in favor of the applicant.