2018 (4) TMI 1652 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 828/5/2006-CX, dated 20-4-2006 - Held that - The Government has examined the matter and it is found from the Order-in-Appeal that this issue has been already discussed in detail by the Commissioner and their eligibility of rebate claim of 80% in advance has been rejected on the ground that there were some cases of arrear against the applicant and even penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act were imposed on the applicant during the year 2012-13 which were even paid by the applicant. This fact has not been denied by the applicant also in their Revision applications and they have merely stated that these cases arose due to interpretational dispute only - The Government believes that while each dispute has interpretational angle, the truth in the matter is that the applicant did not have clean track record and instead the applicant was facing many offence cases and had the arrear of revenue because of which the facility of granting rebate of duty in advance could not be extended to the applicant by virtue of the C.B.E. & C. s circular itself. Therefore, no error can be attributed to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Revision applications filed by the applicant are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision applications challenging rejection of rebate claim.
- Interpretation of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 828/5/2006-CX.
- Eligibility for rebate claim in advance.
- Clean track record requirement for rebate claim.

Analysis:
- The judgment pertains to four Revision Applications filed by M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd. against the rejection of their rebate claim by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. The applications were based on the contention that 80% of the rebate claim should have been granted within 15 days as per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 828/5/2006-CX. The Commissioner had rejected the rebate claim citing arrears and penalties imposed on the applicant in previous years, which were acknowledged and paid by the applicant. The applicant argued that these issues arose due to interpretational disputes. However, the Government found that the applicant's track record was not clean, with various offense cases and arrears of revenue, leading to the denial of the rebate claim in advance based on the Circular's provisions.

- During a personal hearing, the applicant's representative reiterated the grounds for Revision, emphasizing the Circular's provisions. However, the Government, after examining the matter, upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the issue of eligibility for the rebate claim had been thoroughly discussed. The Government highlighted that the applicant's history of arrears and penalties, along with the lack of a clean track record, prevented the extension of the rebate facility in advance. The Government emphasized that despite interpretational disputes, the applicant's past non-compliance with tax obligations justified the rejection of the rebate claim.

- The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a clean track record for availing benefits such as rebate claims in advance. The Government's decision to reject the Revision applications was based on the applicant's history of non-compliance with tax laws, including arrears and penalties. The judgment reaffirms that while interpretational disputes may arise, a consistent record of compliance is crucial for accessing tax-related benefits. The rejection of the rebate claim was justified by the applicant's failure to meet the clean track record requirement specified in the Circular, despite their arguments regarding interpretational issues.