2016 (2) TMI 107 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of rebate claim - maintainability of appeal before Tribunal in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act - Held that - In the present case, we find that the rebate claims arose from the export of excisable goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The contention of the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the Assistant Commissioner had allowed rebate on the goods exported at 12% whereas the rate of duty on the said goods is 6%. We find that as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules the Central Government may, where any goods are exported, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods. Thus, it is apparent that facts in the present case and the facts in the case of Venue International (2015 (10) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) are entirely different. In the present case no issue of Cenvat Credit is involved. Therefore, the ratio of the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai judgment in the case of Venus International does not apply. The proviso (b) to Section 35B (1) clearly states that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against orders passed by Commissioner in respect of rebate of duty of excise on goods exported out of India. In view of the above, appeal is not maintainable. However, the appellant is at liberty to file appeal before the appropriate forum.

Summary

Issues:
Maintainability of appeal before the Tribunal in respect of impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting/reducing the rebate claim.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the maintainability of an appeal before the Tribunal concerning an impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection or reduction of a rebate claim. The proviso (b) to Section 35 (1) states that no appeal lies to the appellate Tribunal for orders related to a rebate of duty of excise on goods exported outside India. The case references a High Court order in a similar matter where the Tribunal allowed an appeal related to Cenvat Credit denial. However, the present case involves rebate claims arising from the export of excisable goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, distinct from the Cenvat Credit issue. The judgment clarifies that the High Court's decision does not apply as no Cenvat Credit issue is present in the current case. Therefore, the appeal is deemed not maintainable under the proviso to Section 35B (1), emphasizing that no appeal can be filed with the Tribunal against orders by the Commissioner concerning rebates on goods exported from India.

The Tribunal distinguishes the current case from the precedent cited, highlighting the different factual circumstances. In the referenced case, the rebate claim arose from the denial of Cenvat Credit, leading to an incorrect sanction of the rebate claim. Conversely, in the present matter, rebate claims stem from the export of excisable goods under Rule 18, with the department contending that rebate was allowed at 12% while the duty rate was 6%. Rule 18 empowers the Central Government to grant rebate on duty paid for exported excisable goods. Given the distinct nature of the issues in the two cases, the Tribunal concludes that the High Court's ruling does not apply to the current scenario. The judgment underscores the specific prohibition on appealing rebate-related orders to the Tribunal as per the statutory provision, underscoring that the appellant can seek recourse through the appropriate forum.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rules that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal due to the specific statutory provision barring appeals on rebate matters to the Tribunal. The appellant is granted the liberty to pursue an appeal before the suitable forum for further redress. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the factual variances between the cited case and the present matter, emphasizing the legal constraints on appealing rebate-related orders to the Tribunal, thereby guiding the appellant on the appropriate course of action for seeking remedy in this specific context.