9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 962 - CGOVT - Central ExciseDenial of rebate claim - Revenue contends that no duty was paid at the time of export as is clear from the ARE-1s. Further the duty shown to be payable in the ARE-1s is @ 16% and not at the rate of duties of customs at which the assessee had paid the duty at the time of debonding vide challans - Held that - applicant, a 100% EOU, has exported the goods under bond without payment of duty in terms of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Applicant has himself admitted that being 100% EOU they were not entitled to rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. applicant has exported goods under bond without payment of duty. The duty paid during debonding of goods was for DTA clearance of goods and not for export of goods. Since goods were exported under bond under Rule 19, the applicant has become disentitled for the benefit under Rule 18 as no duty was paid on clearance of goods for export. The refund of custom duties paid at the time of de-bonding the goods by 100% EOU is not covered under the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As such the contention of applicant for grant of rebate claim of such duty is not acceptable. Government finds support from the observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE reported as 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , and M/s. Paper Products v. CCE reported as 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that the simple and plain meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to - rebate claims have been rightly held inadmissible to the applicant by the Commissioner (Appeals). Government do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim of customs duties paid during debonding. 2. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in rebate claims. 3. Misunderstanding of facts by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Applicability of rebate and drawback provisions. 5. Authority of Assistant Commissioner to sanction refunds. 6. Delay in filing revision applications and condonation of delay. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Refund claim of customs duties paid during debonding: The applicant, M/s. Positive Packaging Industries Ltd., filed a refund claim for Rs. 11,62,951/- and Rs. 12,38,169/- for customs duties paid by their 100% EOU on finished goods during the debonding period. The goods were subsequently exported under bond, and the original documents were submitted as proof of export. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the rebate claims. 2. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in rebate claims: The applicant filed an appeal and stay petition before the CESTAT, Mumbai, which dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability, stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals related to rebate claims as per Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The applicant was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 3. Misunderstanding of facts by the Commissioner (Appeals): The Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the nature of the goods, presuming them to be imported goods on which customs duty was paid. The applicant clarified that the goods were manufactured in their EOU unit and the duty paid was excise duty, not customs duty. This misunderstanding led to an erroneous order, which the applicant argued was a non-speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. 4. Applicability of rebate and drawback provisions: The Commissioner (Appeals) suggested that the applicant might be eligible for drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the applicant contended that the duty paid was excise duty on finished goods, not on inputs or imported goods, and thus did not fall under the purview of drawback provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in stating that the refund could be sanctioned as a rebate under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), which was not applicable to EOUs. 5. Authority of Assistant Commissioner to sanction refunds: The Commissioner (Appeals) raised a new ground that the Assistant Commissioner did not have the authority to sanction the refund of customs duty. The applicant argued that this ground was beyond the scope of the original order and the Revenue's appeal, making the impugned order liable to be set aside. 6. Delay in filing revision applications and condonation of delay: The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay, explaining that the delay occurred due to pursuing the appeal before the CESTAT. The government condoned the delay, noting that the time spent in pursuing the appeal before the wrong forum should be excluded as per various High Court judgments. Government's Decision: The government noted that the applicant, a 100% EOU, exported goods under bond without payment of duty as per Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and was not entitled to rebate claims under Rule 18. The duty paid during debonding was for DTA clearance, not for export. The refund of customs duties paid at the time of debonding is not covered under Rule 18. The rebate claims were rightly held inadmissible by the Commissioner (Appeals). The revision applications were rejected as devoid of merits.
|
