2023 (11) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal - Rebate of duty on the finished goods exported - whether appeal is not maintainable in this Tribunal in terms of Section 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of goods exported out of country? - HELD THAT - From the section 35 B as per the proviso therein clause (b) any order referred in clause (b) if such order relates to rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country, no appeal against such order shall lie to this Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, as per the clear statute of Section 35 B the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Therefore, the revenue appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable.

Summary

Issues involved: Rebate of duty on finished goods exported, jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals), maintainability of appeal u/s 35 B of Central Excise Act.

Rebate of Duty on Exported Goods:
The appellant filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for goods exported on payment of duty. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the claim due to discrepancies. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders-in-original and remanded the matter for verification of drawback claim, valuation of export goods u/s 4 of Central Excise Act, and compliance with relevant notifications and circulars. The Assistant Commissioner later sanctioned a partial rebate. The department appealed, challenging the Commissioner's power to remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rebate sanction, leading to the department's appeal, which was dismissed as the Adjudicating Authority had correctly sanctioned the refund.

Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals):
The revenue appealed against the order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority did not follow the Commissioner's earlier observations, resulting in incorrect rebate sanction. The respondent filed a cross-objection, contending that appeals concerning rebate of duty on exported goods are not maintainable before the Tribunal u/s 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Maintainability of Appeal u/s 35 B:
The Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue argued that the Order-In-Original was not legal as it did not comply with the Commissioner's directions. The Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned order and requested consideration of the cross-objection. The Tribunal observed that as per Section 35 B, no appeal lies before the Tribunal regarding rebate of duty on goods exported to any country. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly.