9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1266 - HC - Central ExciseSupply of goods to SEZ units by DTA suppliers - deemed export - procedure not followed - Rebate to of CVD paid claimed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the strength of disclaimer certificate by the suppliers in favour of the Petitioner - Held that - In case of the petitioner, the goods in respect of which rebate is sought under the notification are raw materials which have been imported from foreign countries or procured locally from local manufacturer. The claim for rebate has been lodged on the goods received by the supplier on payment of duties including CVD. It is the case of the petitioner that the dealers have imported the goods and paid all duties including CVD, which is equivalent to the central excise duties as if the goods are manufactured in India. However, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Countervailing Duty paid at the time of import of goods is a duty equal to the central excise duty leviable on such goods if manufactured in India. Such duty is levied to offset the disadvantage to like Indian goods due to high excise duty on their inputs and to provide a level playing field to indigenous goods which have to bear various internal taxes. However, such duty is not an excise duty. It is by now well settled that in a taxing statute there is no scope of any intendment and the same has to be construed in terms of the language employed in the statute and that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the rules and the notification. Procedure laid in the notification dated 06.09.2004 provides for sealing of the goods and examination at the place of the despatch. Undisputedly, in the case of the present petitioner, no such procedure has been followed. Moreover, the notification defines duty for the purpose of the notification to mean the excise duty collected under the enactments stated therein. Undisputedly, the duties paid by the petitioner in relation to the goods in question do not fall within the enactments stipulated in the notification. Clearly therefore, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the basic requirements for availing of the benefits under the notification. - petitioner is not entitled to any declaration to the effect that it is eligible for getting the rebate claim as sought for in the petition - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Interpretation of the term "excisable goods" under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Applicability of Countervailing Duty (CVD) as equivalent to central excise duty. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: The petitioner company, operating under the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), claimed a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the duty paid on goods supplied by Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) suppliers. The petitioner argued that since the SEZ Act and Rules authorize DTA units to supply goods to SEZ units as exports, they should receive the same benefits as exports under the Central Excise Act. The respondents, however, returned the rebate claims, arguing that the goods were imported and not manufactured or processed in India, thus ineligible for rebate under Rule 18. 2. Interpretation of the term "excisable goods" under the Central Excise Act, 1944: The petitioner contended that the imported goods, having paid Countervailing Duty (CVD), should be treated as excisable goods. The respondents countered that the term "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act refers to goods manufactured in India and subject to excise duty. The court agreed with the respondents, stating that the goods in question were imported and did not bear excise duty as defined under the Act, thus not qualifying for rebate. 3. Applicability of Countervailing Duty (CVD) as equivalent to central excise duty: The petitioner argued that CVD, paid on imported goods, is equivalent to central excise duty and should be eligible for rebate. The respondents maintained that CVD is levied to offset disadvantages to Indian goods due to high excise duty on inputs but is not an excise duty. The court upheld this view, noting that CVD is not an excise duty and does not qualify for rebate under Rule 18. 4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004: The notification requires that excisable goods be exported after payment of duty directly from a factory or warehouse, with specific procedures for sealing and verification. The petitioner did not follow these procedures, and the goods were not exported directly from a factory or warehouse. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the notification's conditions and limitations, thus disqualifying them from rebate claims. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the respondent's detailed reasoning in the communication dated 18th May 2011. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the rebate claim as the goods were not manufactured or processed in India, did not bear excise duty, and the procedural requirements were not met. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
