2012 (4) TMI 540 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Refund claim or rebate claim - Held that - appellant had filed rebate claim and refund claim. Rebate claim stands allowed by the revisionary authority subject to condition that no refund is sanctioned to the appellant in respect of the claim filed by them. It was submitted during the hearing that appellant has received the rebate claim in terms of revisionary order passed by the Govt. of India. Therefore, in terms of the order of Govt. of India itself, the question of sanction of refund by the original authority consequent to the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) which is impugned before me, does not arise. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is in-fructuous - Decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Validity of the letter of undertaking filed by the appellant during the export of goods.
2. Rejection of rebate claim and subsequent filing of a refund claim by the appellant.
3. Decision of the Govt. of India regarding eligibility for rebate subject to conditions.

Issue 1: Validity of the letter of undertaking
The appellant exported goods during a specific period, and it was found that the letter of undertaking filed by the appellant during that time was invalid. This led to the initiation of proceedings against the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant paid the duty with interest and filed a rebate claim, treating the amount paid as duty. The rebate claim was rejected, prompting further actions by the authorities.

Issue 2: Rejection of rebate claim and filing of refund claim
The appellant faced rejection of the rebate claim initially. Following this rejection, the appellant filed a refund claim, which was also rejected by the original adjudicating authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim. This decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) was contested by the Revenue, leading to an appeal.

Issue 3: Decision of the Govt. of India regarding eligibility for rebate
The Govt. of India, through a revisionary order, determined that the appellant was eligible for the rebate. However, this eligibility was subject to the condition that no refund would be granted to the appellant. The Govt. of India's order highlighted the sequence of events where the rebate claim was rejected, prompting the appellant to file a refund claim. The original authority rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision in favor of the appellant.

In the judgment delivered by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, it was observed that the appellant had filed both a rebate claim and a refund claim. The revisionary authority allowed the rebate claim under the condition that no refund would be sanctioned to the appellant concerning the same claim. During the proceedings, it was noted that the appellant had already received the rebate claim in accordance with the Govt. of India's revisionary order. Therefore, the question of granting a refund by the original authority, subsequent to the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, was deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was considered in-fructuous and was rejected by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the fulfillment of the rebate claim as per the Govt. of India's order, rendering the appeal by the Revenue unnecessary and dismissed.

← Previous Next →