2013 (11) TMI 377 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim Assessee manufactured Nylon copolymer synthetic yarn Assessee claimed rebate on the goods exported under DEEC scheme following self-sealing procedure - Goods not examined and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise as the self-sealing is not permitted - Contravention of Notification 19/2004 issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Held that - The procedural requirement of getting goods cleared under DEEC Scheme, examined and sealed by Superintendent, Central Excise is for availing DEEC benefit - substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural lapses - Since the export of duty paid goods is not in dispute, the rebate claim cannot be denied Thus the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004 order set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under DEEC Scheme for procedural violations.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Procedural Violations in Rebate Claims
The revision applications were filed against the rejection of rebate claims by M/s. Superfil Products Ltd, Chennai under the DEEC Scheme for procedural violations. The claims were rejected as the goods were not examined and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, and self-sealing was not permitted for goods cleared under the DEEC Scheme. The appellate authority upheld the rejection, leading to the filing of revision applications.

Issue 2: Grounds of Revision Applications
The revision applications were based on several grounds. The applicant argued that substantial benefit cannot be denied for technical or procedural violations. They contended that the appellate authority did not consider earlier decisions favoring the applicant, and there was an error in not acknowledging the actual export of goods, which should entitle them to the rebate claimed.

Issue 3: Consideration of Export Procedures
The revision applications highlighted that the export procedures allowed for self-sealing and self-certification under specific notifications. The argument emphasized that the procedural requirement of examination and sealing by the Superintendent of Central Excise was for availing DEEC benefits, not for denying rebate claims. The government noted that the export of duty-paid goods was not in dispute, making the rebate claim admissible under the relevant rules and notifications.

Issue 4: Admissibility of Rebate Claim
After considering the case records and arguments presented, the government concluded that the rebate claim was admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with the relevant notification. The impugned order-in-appeal was set aside, directing the original authority to sanction the rebate if the claim was otherwise in order.

In conclusion, the judgment ruled in favor of the applicant, allowing the rebate claim under the DEEC Scheme despite procedural violations. The decision emphasized the admissibility of the claim based on the payment of duty and export of goods, overriding minor procedural lapses.