2015 (4) TMI 206 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Rebate claim earlier rejected vide GOI order but condition imposed upon assessee - Held that - Applicant has stated that they have already paid the amount of confirmed demand to the department and these revision applications have become infructuous. - applicant has failed to file copy of impugned order-in-appeal despite two reminders from this office. The facts of the case and decision of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be known in the absence order-in-appeal. As such the said revision application is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim for duty paid on exported goods.
2. Review of orders by Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Recovery of sanctioned rebate claims with interest.
4. Failure to submit impugned order-in-appeal.
5. Decision on the basis of material on record.

Analysis:
1. The applicant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, filed a revision application against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The firm, functioning as an Export Oriented Unit (EOU), procured materials duty-free against CT-3 certificates and also on payment of duty. They exported goods on payment of duty and claimed rebate, with the department consistently granting such rebates since 2007-08.

2. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned 27 rebate claims amounting to Rs. 51,36,061. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise reviewed the orders and filed appeals against them. Two show cause notices were issued to recover the rebate amounts with interest, leading to the impugned order confirming the demand.

3. The applicant, aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, filed a revision application claiming eligibility for the rebate as duty-paid goods were exported. Despite reminders, the applicant failed to submit the impugned order-in-appeal. The Government noted the earlier revision application where the rebate claims were held inadmissible under the Central Excise Rules, leading to recovery of the sanctioned amounts.

4. The Government, considering the applicant's statement that the proceedings had already been decided against them and the amount had been paid, dismissed the revision application as infructuous. The decision was based on the material on record, and the applicant's failure to provide the impugned order-in-appeal led to the rejection of the revision application.

5. Ultimately, the revision application was dismissed as the rebate claims were deemed inadmissible under the Central Excise Rules, and the applicant was required to repay the sanctioned amounts in cash. The applicant could recredit the amount in their Cenvat Credit account after the recovery. The dismissal was based on the earlier revision application's findings and the applicant's failure to provide necessary documentation.