2013 (9) TMI 770 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Revision Application u/s 35EE of CE Act, 1944 - Rebate Claim under Rule 18 of CE Rules, 2002 - Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Hydraulic Press Machines falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - Customs Officer at SEZ had certified on the ARE-I that goods have been admitted in full in the SEZ - The substantial benefit of rebate claims cannot be denied for only lapse of not filing Bill of Export which was a procedural lapse of technical nature as held by Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Suksha International & Nutan Gems 1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT and in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. DCCE 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - the rebate claim was rightly held admissible in this case by Commissioner (Appeals) - applicant cannot be allowed to continue repeating the said lapse and keep on claiming rebate of duty paid on exported goods - If the said lapse was repeated the benefit of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 will be liable to be rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Requirement of filing Bill of Export with the rebate claim.
3. Interpretation of "Export Entitlement" and its relevance to the case.
4. Compliance with Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Rules, 2006.
5. Government's decision on the admissibility of the rebate claim.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The revision application was filed against the rejection of a rebate claim of Rs. 19,776 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I. The claim was made by a company engaged in manufacturing Hydraulic Press Machines under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The claim was based on supplying goods to another company in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), seeking refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The primary issue was the failure of the assessee to submit the Bill of Export along with the rebate claim, which was considered essential for an export entitlement claim. A show cause notice was issued for rejection of the claim due to this procedural lapse. The original authority rejected the claim on this basis, citing the requirement of the Bill of Export for export entitlement claims.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) interpreted the term "Export Entitlement" and ruled that the claim of rebate on duty paid goods did not fall under this category, thus not necessitating the submission of a Bill of Export. The Commissioner set aside the original order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the assessee.

4. The Government's analysis focused on the SEZ Rules, 2006, which outlined the procedure for procurement from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to SEZ. The rules specified that goods could be supplied to SEZ under a claim of rebate on the cover of ARE-1. The Government emphasized the importance of compliance with these rules in the context of the case.

5. Ultimately, the Government observed that the rebate claims were rightly held admissible by the Commissioner (Appeals) despite the procedural lapse of not filing the Bill of Export. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the Government upheld the admissibility of the rebate claim in this instance. However, a cautionary note was issued that repeated lapses in compliance could lead to the rejection of rebate benefits in the future.

In conclusion, the Government disposed of the revision application, upholding the admissibility of the rebate claim in this case but warning against future non-compliance with procedural requirements.