2008 (9) TMI 168 - HC - Central Excise

Goods were not exported from the factory but from the branch office - Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing rebate claim of the party when the goods were not exported directly from the factory or warehouse as stipulated under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.) - Whether the rebate can be granted when the mandatory conditions stipulated under governing Notification ibid were not fulfilled by the party - both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the reference.
2. Entitlement to rebate claim under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.).

Jurisdiction Issue:
The case involved a dispute over the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a reference related to a rebate claim. The assessee, a corporation, exported cotton yarn and claimed a rebate. The initial claim acceptance by the Assistant Commissioner was challenged by the Revenue, leading to an appeal. The Commissioner of Appeals, Chandigarh, rejected the claim. Surprisingly, the assessee then appealed to the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Calcutta. The High Court examined the jurisdiction issue, noting that the goods were purchased from a branch office in Calcutta, not the factory in Himachal Pradesh. Despite the Tribunal's decision, the High Court held that the Kolkata Bench lacked jurisdiction due to the location of the factory and the registration details.

Rebate Claim Entitlement Issue:
The second issue revolved around the entitlement to a rebate claim under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal allowed the rebate claim based on a 1975 notification permitting rebates even for goods exported from outside factory premises. However, the High Court highlighted a 1994 notification specifying that rebate on excisable goods is allowed only if exported directly from a factory or warehouse after duty payment. In this case, the goods were not exported as per the stipulated conditions. Citing legal precedents emphasizing compliance with conditions for availing rebates, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the conditions for claiming rebates.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after detailed analysis, concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allow the rebate claim was incorrect. Upholding the mandatory conditions laid down in the relevant notifications and legal precedents, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the rebate claim to the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly, with both questions answered in favor of the Revenue against the assessee.