2015 (3) TMI 1041 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - the applicant has exported the goods under Advance Licence - Held that - Supreme Court has held in the case of Mihir Textile Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay 1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that exemption/benefit depending upon satisfaction certain conditions cannot be granted unless such conditions are complied with even such conditions are only directory. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of M/s ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in the case of M/s Paper Products Vs CCE 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that plain and simple meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to. - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly disallowed the said input rebate claims in view of para (v) of Notification No.93/04-Cus dated 10.9.04 as amended vide corrigendum F.No.605/50/2005-DBK dated 17.5.2005. Government do not find any infirmity in the said orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. Interpretation of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04 and its impact on rebate claims. Compliance with conditions and procedures stipulated in Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 for rebate claims. Applicability of CBEC Manual provisions on situations where input stage rebate cannot be claimed. Entitlement to claim refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for inputs used in export. Previous GOI Revision Order No.09-37/11-Cx dated 18.1.11 in the applicant's case and its relevance to the current dispute.

Analysis:

1. The revision applications were filed by M/s International Tractors Ltd. against orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), LTU, New Delhi, rejecting rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods, specifically tractors attracting Nil rate of Central Excise Duty.

2. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04, which governed the Advance Licence Scheme. The authorities rejected the rebate claims based on the condition in the notification that disallowed rebate of duty paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of resultant products exported under the scheme, as per Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002.

3. M/s International Tractors Ltd. argued that the conditions of the notification should not bar their rebate claims under Rule 18, emphasizing compliance with Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 and asserting that the denial of rebate was against the spirit of the law.

4. The applicant also contended that the non-fulfillment of conditions in the notification should not lead to the denial of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002, highlighting the distinction between the conditions for exemption and the eligibility for rebate claims.

5. Additionally, M/s International Tractors Ltd. referenced the CBEC Manual provisions outlining situations where input stage rebate cannot be claimed, arguing that none of those conditions applied in their case, thus reinforcing their entitlement to the rebate claims for duty paid on indigenous inputs used in the exported tractors.

6. The applicant further sought to claim a refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, citing various decisions in support of their position and emphasizing the government's initiatives to promote exports by neutralizing duties and taxes.

7. The government, in its analysis, referred to a previous GOI Revision Order in the applicant's case, where similar rebate claims were rejected based on the conditions of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04. The government upheld the impugned order-in-appeal, citing the applicability of the previous order to the current dispute.

8. The government highlighted the strict adherence to statutory provisions and the plain meaning of the wordings of the statute, emphasizing that conditions for benefits must be strictly complied with. The government rejected the revision applications, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly disallowed the input rebate claims in line with the notification's provisions.

9. The government concluded that there was no merit in the revision applications and upheld the orders-in-appeal, thereby rejecting the applicant's claims for rebate on duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported tractors.

---