2020 (1) TMI 1313 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claim - rejection on the ground that applicant paid the duty deliberately to encash the CENVAT credit when clearly the same was not payable - HELD THAT - The applicant has exported goods in discharge of his export obligation against the Advance licenses in terms of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. dated 11-9-2009. The applicant has stated that Notification 96/2009-Cus. dated 11-9-2009 does not debar him from payment of duty on export goods and subsequently claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 - ince the relevant central excise notifications governing the export of excisable goods under Advance Authorisation Licence Scheme bar the clearance of export goods on payment of duty no rebate is admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 consequentially. The applicant has paid an amount as central excise duty on the export goods from their Cenvat account. The said amount does not assume the character of duty as defined under Rule 2(e) of Central Excise Rules 2002 wherein duty means the duty payable under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act - C.B.I. C. vide Circular No. 203/37/96-CX. dated 26-4-96 has stated that AR-4 (now ARE-1) value of excisable goods should be determined under Section 4 of Central Excise Act 1944. Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on one s own volition cannot be treated as duty. It has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the applicant in the manner in which it was paid as the said amount cannot be retained by Government without any authority of law. Government holds that the applicant is not entitled for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 on the impugned goods exported under Advance License Scheme in terms of Notification 42/2001-Central Excise (N.T.) 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) both dated 26-6-2001 read with Notification 96/2009-Cus. dated 11-9-2009 - Revision application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over rebate claims under Central Excise Rules
- Interpretation of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus.
- Applicability of Cenvat credit on duty paid inputs
- Export obligations under Advance License Scheme
- Legal position on duty payment for exported goods

Analysis:
1. The case involved ten Revision Applications filed against Orders-in-Appeal by M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned rebate claims, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondent's appeal, leading to the Revision Applications.

2. The applicant, engaged in manufacturing automobile tires, filed rebate claims under Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on Notification No. 96/2009-Cus., requiring export without duty payment. The applicant challenged this decision in the Revision Applications.

3. The applicant's representative cited various judicial precedents supporting their claim for Cenvat credit on duty paid inputs. They argued that the notifications did not restrict claiming rebate on duty paid for export goods. The absence of the respondent during hearings led to the decision based on available evidence.

4. The dispute included the admissibility of Cenvat credit on raw materials under the Advance Authorization scheme. The conditions specified under the scheme were crucial in determining the eligibility for credit.

5. The applicant exported goods against Advance licenses, arguing that Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. did not prohibit duty payment on export goods for claiming rebate under Central Excise Rules.

6. The notifications, including 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and 42/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), outlined procedures for duty exemption on exported goods, emphasizing compliance with specified conditions.

7. The judgment highlighted the exemption of materials from customs duty under Advance Authorisation licenses but clarified that the notifications did not address duty payment on manufactured goods exported under the scheme.

8. The decision emphasized that the relevant notifications barred clearance of export goods on duty payment, rendering rebate inadmissible under Central Excise Rules.

9. Reference to a CESTAT order was made, but its applicability was questioned, indicating that the judgment did not align with the present case's circumstances.

10. The payment of central excise duty on export goods was discussed, clarifying that the amount paid did not meet the definition of duty under Central Excise Rules.

11. Legal opinions and court decisions were cited to support the government's position on duty payment and rebate eligibility under the Central Excise Rules.

12. Ultimately, the government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revision Applications based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and duty payment requirements for exported goods.