9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1789 - CGOVT - CustomsRebate of duty - input sage - Duty Drawback - rejection of rebate claims of the appellant on the ground that the double benefit i.e. rebate of input stage and drawback of duty is not admissible - Held that - Since the applicant has claimed drawback @ 5% which is common in both the A & B column of drawback schedule it is implicit that the applicant has claimed only Customs component of drawback on exported goods and not in respect of Central Excise and service tax. Apparently because of this fact alone Customs Authorities granted drawback @ 5% in respect of exported goods without verifying availment of Cenvat credit by the applicant in respect of inputs. As the applicant has not availed drawback of duty of Central Excise paid on inputs, the rebate of duty in respect of the duty paid on inputs used in the exported goods cannot be denied to the applicant - Even otherwise there is no provision in Rule 18 and in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 which prohibits grant of rebate of duty in the event of availment of duty drawback. Revision application allowed.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate of duty of input stage if drawback under Drawback Rules, 1995 is claimed. Analysis: The Revision Application was filed by M/s. Gokul Auto Pvt. Ltd. against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Kolkata, regarding the admissibility of rebate of duty of input stage when claiming drawback under Drawback Rules, 1995. The original Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the rebate claims, citing that claiming both rebate of input stage and drawback of duty is not permissible. The applicant argued that they had only taken drawback of duty for Customs component and not for Central Excise and Service Tax, thus should be eligible for the rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the exported product. During the Personal Hearing, the applicant reiterated their submission made in the Revision Application. The Government carefully examined the case and noted that the rejection of the rebate claim was based on the applicant claiming drawback of duty at 5%, without analyzing the type of drawback availed. The Assistant Commissioner relied on certain instructions to reject the claim, while the Government pointed out that the applicant had only claimed Customs component drawback, evident from the common rate in both columns of the drawback schedule. As the applicant did not avail drawback of duty for Central Excise paid on inputs, they were entitled to the rebate of duty on those inputs. The Government emphasized that the principle of double benefit does not apply in this case as rebate of excise duty and drawback of customs duty are distinct and available under different schemes. Consequently, the Government allowed the Revision Application, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment clarified that the applicant, by claiming only Customs component drawback and not Central Excise or Service Tax components, was eligible for the rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the exported goods. The decision emphasized the distinction between rebate of excise duty and drawback of customs duty, highlighting that the applicant had not availed double benefits and was entitled to the rebate.
|
