2007 (10) TMI 216 - HC - Central Excise

Petitioner has also availed of the benefit of DEPB, therefore, under Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be allowed simultaneously - restriction is kept because reimbursement of duty incidence cannot be allowed twice- petitioner has got benefit of DEPB and for the same goods, he is claiming rebate under Rule 12(l)(b), is not justified - present petition is not tenable in law and required to be dismissed with costs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate on exported goods; Compliance with Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.); Entitlement for rebate under Rule 12(1)(b) of CER, 1944; Availing benefit of DEPB and claiming rebate simultaneously.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners claimed rebate in 2001 on goods exported by them, but the authorities refused the rebate. A show cause notice was issued, and despite replies, the rebate claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority. The appeal and revision were also dismissed by higher authorities.

2. The petitioners argued that they should be entitled to rebate even if the conditions of Notification No. 42/94-C.E. (N.T.) were not followed, as the manufacturer exporter is responsible for compliance. However, the Adjudicating Authority found that the exported goods were scarves made from materials on which duty was paid, not a case for rebate on export goods but on excisable materials used in manufacturing.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, noting the failure to establish that the exported goods were manufactured from the processed materials as required by Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The claim was rejected due to non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

4. The Government, in revision, reiterated that it was a case of rebate on excisable materials under Rule 12(1)(b) of CER, 1944, and since the goods were exported under the DEPB Scheme, the benefit of DEPB and Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be allowed simultaneously.

5. The General instructions clarified that DEPB benefit and Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be claimed together to avoid double reimbursement of duty incidence. The petitioners' argument of entitlement for rebate despite availing DEPB benefit was dismissed by the court, upholding the concurrent findings of the authorities.

6. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for rebate, while benefiting from DEPB for the same goods, was not justified. Both petitions were dismissed based on the established facts and legal provisions preventing simultaneous benefits of DEPB and Rule 12(1)(b) rebate.