9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1510 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate claim - import of raw material without payment of Customs duty - export of goods in discharge of export obligation against advance license in terms of N/N. 96/2009-Cus., dated 11-9-2009 - rebate rejected on the ground that the said notification grants exemption from Customs duty on the procurement of inputs subsequent to export of finished goods under bond. HELD THAT - The importer is not required to furnish a bond in respect of subsequent imports in case export goods are not cleared under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is observed that the interpretation of the respondent that an assessee who has been issued Advance Authorisation license under Notification No. 96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009 cannot export goods on payment of duty and subsequently claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is erroneous. As per the judgment CESTAT in INDORAMA SYNTHETICS (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX. CUS., NAGPUR 2014 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI drew parity with the advance license holders under Notification No. 93/2004-Customs, dated 10-9-2004 wherein there was no such condition and granted relief to the assessees on the premise that advance license holders on annual basis cannot be put to disadvantage in comparison to holders of advance license on consignment basis. Since there is no bar to claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of exports cleared on payment of duty under Notification No. 96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009, Government allows the impugned six rebates claims cumulatively amounting to ₹ 92,04,840/- to the applicant - revision application allowed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) for goods exported under Advance license scheme. 2. Interpretation of Notification No. 96/2009-Customs regarding the grant of rebate of Central Excise duty on export goods. 3. Comparison with the judgment in the case of M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE [2013 (296) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. - Mum.)] for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Detailed Analysis: 1. The case involved the rejection of six rebate claims by M/s. Kotsons Pvt. Ltd. for goods exported under an Advance license scheme. The exports were made between January 2014 to February 2014, totaling &8377; 92,04,840/-. The rejection was based on the grounds that the exports were in discharge of the export obligation under the Advance license scheme, as mentioned in the shipping bills and the advance license was issued under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-14 by the Ministry of Commerce. 2. The applicant contended that there was no condition in Notification No. 96/2009-Customs that prevented the grant of rebate of Central Excise duty paid on export goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if goods were exported on payment of duty. The applicant highlighted Condition No. (vi) of the notification, arguing that the interpretation by the authorities was erroneous. The condition stated that an importer is not required to furnish a bond for subsequent imports if export goods are not cleared under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. The applicant also relied on the judgment in the case of M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE [2013 (296) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. - Mum.)], where it was held that holders of Advance License under specific notifications could export under a claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The judgment emphasized the conditions under which exports could be made without affecting the rebate claims. The Tribunal granted relief to the assessees based on the premise that license holders should not be disadvantaged based on the type of license held. In conclusion, the government allowed the six rebate claims amounting to &8377; 92,04,840/- to the applicant as there was no legal bar to claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for exports cleared on payment of duty under Notification No. 96/2009-Customs. The order-in-appeal was set aside, and the revision applications were allowed based on the detailed analysis and interpretation of the relevant notifications and judgments.
|
