2014 (8) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of predeposit of duty - rebate claim - Clearance of goods to SEZ unit - appellants reversed cenvat credit on the materials cleared to the SEZ unit - appellants claimed of reabte of duty which was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority under Rule 18 - commissioner (A) set aside the order - Held that - Rule 18 provides that rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on clearance in the manufacture of processing of such goods. In the instant case, the applicant claimed rebate on the duty paid as input credit in the raw materials which is prima facie covered by Rule 18 of the said Rules. Accordingly, predeposit of duty is waived and its recovery is stayed till disposal of appeals - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved: Waiver of predeposit of duty, rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, clearance of goods under Rule 3(5) for claiming rebate, appeal filed by Revenue, decision of Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. Waiver of predeposit of duty: The applicant filed applications seeking waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to &8377; 4,03,969. After considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, it was found that the applicants had cleared duty paid GPSS raw materials for plastic and plastic hangers to their SEZ Unit. The appellants reversed cenvat credit on the materials cleared to the SEZ unit. The main contention was whether the clearance of goods under Rule 3(5) could be equated with the payment of duty for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

2. Rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002: The appellants claimed rebate of duty which was initially sanctioned by the adjudicating authority under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in conjunction with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. However, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging this decision. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The argument put forth by the Learned A.R was that the clearance of goods under Rule 3(5) should not be considered equivalent to duty payment for claiming rebate under Rule 18.

3. Decision and Rationale: Upon a thorough examination, it was observed that Rule 18 allows for the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on clearance in the manufacture or processing of such goods. In this case, the applicant sought rebate on the duty paid as input credit in the raw materials, which prima facie falls within the ambit of Rule 18 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Consequently, the predeposit of duty was waived, and the recovery of the amount was stayed until the appeals were disposed of. The stay applications were granted, and the decision was pronounced in open court by Pradip Kumar Das, J.