2019 (8) TMI 528 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - export of goods manufactured outside India - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - removal of LCD panels and parts of coloured televisions removed (as such), from its factory at Noida by way of export transaction outside the country - Rule 3 (vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - It emerges that under Rule 18 there is no direct specification that the goods eligible to rebate must have been manufactured inside the country. In fact the requirement under that Rule is with respect to 'any goods'. The word 'any' would clearly include both goods that may have been manufactured inside the country or may have been received from outside the country. The eligibility to rebate does not hinge on the fact that the goods may have been manufactured inside the country but on the fact whether the Central Government had notified the rebate on such goods, that goods must also be 'excisable goods'. For any goods as to be described as 'excisable goods', the definition given to that term under Section 2 (d) of the Act would have to be read as the Central Excise Rules 2002, do not define the word 'excisable goods'. However, under Rule 2 (i) of the Central Excise Rules 2002, words and expressions used under the Rules but not defined, shall carry the same meaning as has been assigned to under the Act. Clearly for any goods to be described as 'excisable goods', the requirement is that they must be such as have been specified in the first schedule or the second schedule ( prior to the amendment made in 2017). LCD panels and parts were admittedly so specified. Therefore, the goods in question were clearly 'excisable goods' and therefore entitled to rebate. What then arises for consideration is whether there was any duty paid on such 'excisable goods'. Undisputedly, the goods had suffered countervailing duty and therefore by virtue of Rule 3 (1) (vii) of the CENVAT Rules 2004, it was eligible to CENVAT Credit. It cannot therefore, be said that goods did not suffer any duty for the purpose of Rule 18. Thereafter, only the conditions and limitations provided under the excise notification remained to be fulfilled - in view of the fact that it is again undisputed that the CENVAT Credit availed had been reversed in entirety under Rules of 2004, the goods that were excisable goods clearly came to be exported after payment of duty. There is no dispute to the fact that they were exported directly by the petitioner to its other manufacturing units outside the country. There found to exist no stipulation under the Rule or a condition under the rebate notification that the eligible goods must have been actually manufactured inside the country. The consequence that arises is that goods that may even be deemed to have been manufactured upon payment of excise duty would remain eligible to rebate on their export. The above construction also appears to be plausible as otherwise it may only lead to a situation where, the goods that may have been received during transit. In that regard, the interpretation placed by the Central Government itself in the context of the MODVAT scheme, is also pertinent. The matter is remitted to the original authority for consequential effect in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claim on excise duty for re-exported LCD panels and parts.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Compliance with conditions under notification No. 19/2004 dated 6.9.2004.
5. Definition and applicability of 'excisable goods' under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claim on Excise Duty for Re-exported LCD Panels and Parts:
The petitioner, an international manufacturer of electronic goods, filed a petition against the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to ?1,58,89,518/-. The claim was for excise duty paid on LCD panels and parts of colored televisions, which were imported and then re-exported without any manufacturing process within the country. The authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the goods were not manufactured in India and hence did not suffer any excise duty.

2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
Rule 18 provides for a rebate of duty on goods exported, subject to conditions specified in the notification. The petitioner argued that Rule 18 does not specify that goods must be manufactured in India to be eligible for a rebate. The court noted that Rule 18 applies to 'any goods,' which includes both domestically manufactured and imported goods. The eligibility hinges on whether the Central Government has notified the rebate on such goods and if they qualify as 'excisable goods.'

3. Applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
Rule 3(5) mandates that when inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory, an amount equal to the credit availed must be paid. The petitioner complied with this by reversing the CENVAT credit availed on the imported goods, which was equivalent to paying the countervailing duty. The court found that this reversal amounted to the payment of duty, making the goods eligible for a rebate under Rule 18.

4. Compliance with Conditions under Notification No. 19/2004 Dated 6.9.2004:
The notification outlines conditions for granting a rebate, including that goods must be exported directly from the factory after payment of duty. The petitioner argued, and the court agreed, that the goods were exported directly from the factory and that the reversal of CENVAT credit constituted payment of duty. The court found no requirement under the notification that the goods must be manufactured in India.

5. Definition and Applicability of 'Excisable Goods' under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1985:
Section 2(d) defines 'excisable goods' as those specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, subject to a duty of excise. The court noted that the LCD panels and parts were specified in these schedules, making them 'excisable goods.' Since the goods had suffered countervailing duty and the CENVAT credit was reversed, they were deemed to have paid excise duty, fulfilling the conditions for a rebate.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no stipulation under Rule 18 or the rebate notification that the goods must be manufactured in India to be eligible for a rebate. The goods, being 'excisable goods' and having paid duty through CENVAT credit reversal, were eligible for a rebate. The court set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 and remitted the matter to the original authority for consequential action in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →