2020 (3) TMI 740 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate of Central Excise duty - Non-payment of duty due to restriction in utilization of credit under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT - Since payment in respect of export goods was required to be made in terms of Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the exporters had no choice but to comply with the same which they have done in the instant case. Therefore the rebate claims cannot be denied on the ground that the export goods have been cleared without payment of duty from the manufacturer s premises on the date of removal. The Government does not find any deficiency in the Commissioner (Appeals) s order - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rebate of duty on export goods paid under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The case involved a Revision Application filed against an Order-In-Appeal regarding the grant of rebate claims on export goods by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The dispute centered around whether the condition of "shall be exported after payment of duty" under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) had been met when duty was paid on export goods under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant argued that the duty payment was made after export, citing a judgment by the High Court of Delhi. However, the Central Excise Manual and relevant rules indicated that duty payment on export goods was deemed satisfied if the exporter followed the prescribed procedure, as clarified under Rule 8 and Para 8.3. The Adjudicating authority found the rebate claims in order as per the notification.

The Government's analysis focused on the applicability of Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which emphasized timely duty payment for export goods to be treated similarly to goods cleared for home consumption. The judgment in M/s. Sandhar Automotives v. Joint Secretary, Government of India was distinguished as it involved delayed duty payment. Citing previous Supreme Court decisions, it was established that substantive conditions should prevail over technical procedural conditions. The exporters in this case had paid duty on export goods in accordance with Rule 8(1), meeting the necessary requirement for rebate claims.

Ultimately, the Government found no deficiency in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and rejected the revision application. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely duty payment under Rule 8 for export goods and affirmed that the rebate claims could not be denied based on the ground that duty was paid after the goods were cleared from the manufacturer's premises.