2015 (3) TMI 996 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004 - no manufacturing activity was carried out by the applicant on goods purchased to qualify for rebate benefit in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004 - held that - rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004 is admissible on the duty paid on excisable goods used in manufacture or processing of export goods. In the instant case, the applicant paid the duty on final product which was supplied to the SEZ and not on inputs used in manufacture of such final product. Since, no manufacturing activity has been carried out by the applicants, they cannot claim the benefit of input stage rebate under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Government finds that since the applicant paid the duty on final product, they were required to file rebate claim under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). But the applicant wrongly chose to file their rebate claim under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Procedure laid down in the said C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997 has not been followed, neither the goods were examined by the concerned Superintendent, Central Excise nor there are any identifiable marks/numbers on the goods to correlate them with the goods cleared from factory of manufacture on payment of duty. Applicant himself has stated the said requirement of C.B.E. & C. Circular but failed to give any explanation about compliance of same. Therefore the essential condition of export of duty paid goods for claiming rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not fulfilled. As such said rebate claim was rightly held inadmissible. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.)
Compliance with prescribed procedures for rebate claim
Admissibility of rebate on excisable goods used in manufacture or processing of export goods
Interpretation of specific procedures for claiming rebate
Applicability of special provisions for export of tea to other products
Strict construction of statutory provisions

Analysis:
The case involved a revision application by a company against the rejection of its rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The company, engaged in manufacturing Glued Insulated Rail, had filed a rebate claim for goods purchased and cleared to a SEZ developer. The claim was rejected on grounds of non-compliance with prescribed procedures and lack of manufacturing activity on the purchased goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the revision application before the Central Government.

The applicant argued that the goods were exported following SEZ Rules, not requiring compliance with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.). Additionally, they claimed general permission for rebate based on duty-paid goods, citing a circular not presented during appeal. The applicant also referenced a special procedure for tea exports, contending its applicability to their case.

The Central Government noted that the rebate was admissible on duty paid on goods used in manufacturing or processing of export goods. Since the applicant paid duty on the final product supplied to the SEZ, not on manufacturing inputs, they were ineligible for input stage rebate under the mentioned notification. The Government found the applicant incorrectly filed the rebate claim under the wrong notification, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with statutory provisions.

Regarding the general permission for rebate, the Government highlighted non-compliance with the circular requirements, leading to the inadmissibility of the claim. The argument for extending the special provision for tea exports to other products was dismissed, citing strict statutory construction principles and specific applicability of provisions to tea only.

Ultimately, the Central Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claim, finding no merit in the revision application and ordering its dismissal. The judgment emphasized adherence to prescribed procedures and the strict interpretation of statutory provisions in determining the eligibility of rebate claims.