2017 (10) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Refund of Additional Excise Duty (AED) - the appellant claimed refund of said AED paid as the buyer of HSD, having borne the incidence of duty - Held that - The N/N. 22/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 specifically exempts all goods specified in Annexure-I to this Notification (at Sl. No.9 of the Annexure-I Consumables are mentioned which cover the subject item viz., HSD oil), if brought in connection with manufacture and packaging of articles or for production or packaging or job work for export of goods or services, into export oriented undertaking - The Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore 2007 (5) TMI 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE refers to CBEC Circualr No.60/01/06-CX dated 13.1.2006, which says that on export of goods, none of the duties chargeable under any Act of Parliament is payable, and holds that an exporter would be entitled to the benefit of exemption from National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) under N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995. For the present facts, following the ratio of the Tribunal s decision in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., the appellant-assessee is also entitled to the refund of Additional Duty of Excise paid to the manufacturer-supplier by the appellant. There can be no doubt that the exporter-assessee is entitled to the claim of the refund filed for the Additional Duty of Excise paid on the HSD oil for use in the manufacture of export product - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of refund claim for Additional Excise Duty (AED) paid on HSD oil by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing garnet abrasives.

Analysis:
The appellant, an EOU, procured HSD oil for manufacturing final products for exports and paid AED despite an exemption under Notification No.22/2003-CE. The appellant claimed refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which was rejected by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal analyzed Circular No.60/1/2000-CX, which states that on export of goods, none of the duties leviable under any Act of Parliament is payable. Referring to various circulars and instructions, the Tribunal concluded that no duties under different Acts of Parliament are required to be paid on export of goods under bond. The Tribunal also cited the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that exporters are entitled to exemptions and refunds, and the case of Rivaa Exports Ltd., which emphasized that no duty is payable on export of goods.

Based on the above analysis and precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the refund of Additional Duty of Excise paid on HSD oil for manufacturing export products. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant circulars, notifications, and precedents, establishing that no duties are payable on export of goods under bond. The appellant, being an EOU, was found eligible for the refund of AED paid on HSD oil, in line with the principles laid down in previous judgments and circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.