2015 (3) TMI 953 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - rebate claims rejected on the ground that M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd., Kolkata is not the proper claimant to file rebate claims - Commissioner held that' M/s IFL & M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd (Claimant) are not two different companies but the same legal entity - Held that - respondent has taken a contradictory stand. On the one hand they-'are contending that IFL ceased to exist legally and physically after 30.9.10, whereas, on the other hand the said IFL continued to a central excise registered assesse and continued to export the goods even after 30.9.10. They should have surrendered the Central Excise registration immediately after 30.9.10 but they did not do so for reasons known to them. - as pointed out by Commissioner (Appeals) the original authority has not issued show cause notice in the matter and therefore decided the case without following the principles of natural justice. The violation of principles of natural justice vitiates the whole proceedings. In these circumstances the case is required to be remanded back for fresh considerations in the light of above observations. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Proper claimant for rebate claims.
2. Merger and legal status of M/s India Foils Ltd. (IFL) and M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (EDAL).
3. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and procedures.
4. Issuance of show cause notice and principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Claimant for Rebate Claims:
The primary issue was whether M/s Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. (EDAL) was the proper claimant for rebate claims on duty paid for goods exported by M/s India Foils Ltd. (IFL). The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Khardah-II Division, rejected the claims, stating that EDAL was not the proper claimant. The Commissioner (Appeal-I) Central Excise, Kolkata, however, held that IFL and EDAL were the same legal entity due to the merger and remanded the matter back to the lower authority for issuing a show cause notice and passing a speaking order.

2. Merger and Legal Status of IFL and EDAL:
The respondent argued that IFL merged with EDAL as per the BIFR Order dated 30-09-2010, leading to IFL's dissolution without winding up. Consequently, all assets, liabilities, and rights of IFL, including export incentives and benefits, vested in EDAL. The Department contended that IFL continued to operate as a registered manufacturer/exporter and that no disclaimer certificate was issued by IFL in favor of EDAL. The Government noted the contradictory stance of the respondent, where IFL continued to export goods and held Central Excise registration even after the merger date.

3. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and Procedures:
The respondent maintained that all assets and liabilities, including rebate claims, transferred to EDAL upon merger. The Department argued that rebate claims should be processed per Central Excise Law guidelines and that corporate difficulties should not override these procedures. The Government observed that the original authority did not issue a show cause notice, thus violating principles of natural justice, which vitiated the proceedings.

4. Issuance of Show Cause Notice and Principles of Natural Justice:
The Government emphasized that the original authority failed to issue a show cause notice, which is a fundamental requirement for ensuring natural justice. The absence of this notice necessitated remanding the case back for fresh consideration, ensuring that both parties are given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Conclusion:
The Government modified the impugned order-in-appeal and remanded the case back to the original authority to decide afresh, considering the observations made. The original authority is directed to issue a show cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity for both parties to be heard before making a decision. The revision application was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →