2020 (12) TMI 136 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of rebate claim - determination of date of export - Doctrine of promissory estoppel - goods exported after 02.06.2004 - effect of amendment by N/N. 10/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 02.06.2004, retrospective or prospective - argument is that goods once packed were beyond the control of the petitioner, the amendment carried out vide notification No 10/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 02.06.2004 will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner as the same cannot be given a retrospective effect - principles of estoppel - HELD THAT - It is the undisputed case of the parties that for export of goods after 02.06.2004, the petitioner will be entitled to any refund of the duty paid in view of Notification No. 10/2004-C.E.(N.T) dated 02.06.2004. Bill of lading against which the petitioner had claimed refund of duty are dated 03.06.2004 and 18.06.2004. That means the goods were exported after 02.06.2004 and not prior thereto. The aforesaid two dates are after the cut of date of 02.06.2004. Any process prior to that will be in aid of export and cannot be considered export as such. Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 throws light on the issue as to when the goods are deemed to be exported. Explanation thereto provides that if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or aircraft, in which the such goods are loaded leaves India. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the goods were exported by sea and the bills of lading are dated 03.06.2004 and 18.06.2004. Hence, any date prior to that cannot be taken as the date of export of goods. Plea of Estoppel - HELD THAT - The plea of estoppel is also merely to be noticed and rejected for the reason that there cannot be estoppel against statute. Once Section 11-B of the Act clearly defines when the goods are treated to be exported. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for quashing orders related to rebate claims and notification amendments.
2. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules regarding export procedures and duty rebates.
3. Dispute over entitlement to duty refund for exported goods post-amendment.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash various orders, including those related to rebate claims and notification amendments. The petitioner, a manufacturer of cotton and manmade yarn, exported goods and claimed rebate of duty paid. However, the claim was rejected by lower authorities, leading to this legal challenge.

Issue 2:
The case involved an interpretation of Central Excise Rules concerning export procedures and duty rebates. The petitioner relied on specific notifications and rules governing the export of excisable goods, highlighting the conditions and procedures for claiming rebates. The respondent argued that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund due to certain notifications and the nature of the goods exported.

Issue 3:
A crucial aspect of the dispute was the entitlement to duty refund for goods exported after a particular amendment date. The court examined the timeline of events, emphasizing that goods exported after the amendment date were not eligible for a refund. The judges referenced relevant legal provisions, including Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, to determine the point at which goods are considered exported, emphasizing the significance of the date when the goods leave the customs frontier.

In the final analysis, the court found no error in the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of duty paid for goods exported after the specified amendment date. The judgment underscored the importance of legal provisions in determining export timelines and duty entitlements, ultimately upholding the rejection of the petitioner's rebate claims.