2017 (8) TMI 1172 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacture - rebate claim - CENVAT credit on the inputs/input services used in the export of goods - Held that - the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself and secondly it is not known whether any appeal is being preferred or has been preferred against the order passed by the CESTAT. One more factual aspect that has to be pointed out is that the petitioner did not take any steps to seek for early adjudication of the Show Cause Notices, though they were issued between October 2010 and December 2012 and immediately after succeeding before the Tribunal, they cannot seek for a direction to the second respondent to finally adjudicate the Show Cause Notices, as it appears that appeal time is yet to be over - second respondent/adjudicating authority is directed to take note of the petitioner s representations dated 28.06.2017, 10.07.2017 and 21.07.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Direction sought for disposal of Rebate Application.
2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notices.
3. Entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules.
4. Delay in adjudication by the second respondent.
5. Decision of CESTAT regarding activities as manufacture.
6. Representation to adjudicating authority.
7. Finality of CESTAT's order and entitlement to benefits.
8. Consideration of appeal by the Revenue.
9. Court's decision on issuing positive direction.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner requested a direction for the second respondent to dispose of the Rebate Application after adjudicating Show Cause Notices issued, based on the decision of CESTAT. The Notices proposed rejection of rebate claim under Central Excise Act, alleging non-manufacturing activities by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner submitted replies to the Notices, asserting entitlement to rebate under Rule 18 and requesting a personal hearing. However, the second respondent delayed adjudication, citing a related matter under appeal before CESTAT.
3. CESTAT, in its order dated 15.05.2017, determined that the petitioner's activities constituted manufacturing, allowing CENVAT credit. The petitioner then addressed the adjudicating authority, seeking consideration of rebate claims in light of CESTAT's decision.
4. The petitioner argued that since CESTAT's order was final, the respondent should process their rebate claim with interest. The Revenue's Standing Counsel mentioned uncertainty regarding a possible appeal by the department.
5. The court acknowledged the uncertainty of a departmental appeal but emphasized the petitioner's entitlement to benefits from CESTAT's order unless an appeal with interim stay was filed. It declined to issue a positive direction due to pending appeal considerations.
6. Noting the pending Show Cause Notices and lack of proactive steps by the petitioner for early adjudication, the court directed the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within five weeks, especially if the department accepted CESTAT's decision.

Overall, the judgment addressed the delay in adjudication, the impact of CESTAT's decision on rebate claims, and the necessity for the department to act promptly in light of the legal developments.