2014 (12) TMI 78 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - imported goods have been exported as such without undertaking any manufacturing process - Held that - Goods in question Styrene Monomer exported vide ARE-1 No. 26/21-11-2007 was not manufactured by the respondent party but the same had been procured from M/s Karnataka Chemicals Industries, Bangalore, a registered dealer who imported the said goods. These goods are not inputs/raw material for the goods manufactured in the factory of respondent. So it is neither a case of export of excisable goods manufactured by respondent nor a case of clearance of inputs as such for export on reversal of equal Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the excisable goods are not exported on payment of duty the rebate claim was rightly held inadmissible by the original authority. Goods exported are not inputs used in the manufacturing of exported goods. In this case the imported goods have been re-exported - Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing rebate in this case - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of rebate claim for CVD paid on exported goods
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002

Analysis:
1. Eligibility of rebate claim for CVD paid on exported goods:
The case involved a rebate claim for CVD paid on goods exported by the respondent. The applicant department contended that the goods exported were not excisable goods as they were not manufactured in India, thus rendering the rebate claim inadmissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondent, citing a case law where a similar refund claim was allowed. However, the Government noted that the goods in question were not manufactured by the respondent but procured from a registered dealer who imported them. As the goods were not inputs for the respondent's manufacturing process, the rebate claim was rightly held inadmissible. The Government emphasized that the case law cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not apply to the present situation, as the facts were different. The Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restored the Order-in-Original, concluding that the rebate claim was not eligible due to the nature of the exported goods.

2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
The revision application raised concerns regarding the interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant department argued that the CVD paid on imported goods cannot be rebated as per the notification under Rule 18. They highlighted that excisable goods are those specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act and duty of excise is leviable only on goods produced or manufactured in India. The Government agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that for a claimant to be eligible for rebate, the goods must be excisable and duty of excise should be paid on them. Since the goods in question were not manufactured in India, they did not qualify as excisable goods, making the rebate claim inadmissible. The Government's decision was based on a harmonious reading of Rule 18 and the Central Excise Act, supporting the applicant department's grounds for the revision application.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the ineligibility of the rebate claim for CVD paid on goods exported by the respondent due to the nature of the goods and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The Government's decision to set aside the Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order-in-Original was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal framework surrounding the case.