1997 (3) TMI 125 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 12A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Non-renewal of registration for the year 1992.
3. Rejection of claims on the grounds of the endorsement "Not for Export."
4. Burden of proof on claiming drawback on tea.
5. Impact of drawback claimed on packing materials on the rebate claim.
6. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding rebate and drawback.
7. Granting of rebate subject to refund of drawback amount paid.

Analysis:

1. The revision applications were filed against the rejection of rebate claims under Rule 12A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the claims citing non-renewal of registration for the year 1992 and the endorsement "Not for Export" on the documents. The appellate authority upheld the rejection based on non-renewal but found fault with the rejection on the grounds of the endorsement. The burden of proof on claiming drawback on tea was also discussed, referencing a judgment of the Apex Court.

2. The issue of non-renewal of registration for the year 1992 was raised by the authorities to reject the rebate claims. The applicants argued that the delay in communication of renewal should not be held against them, especially when the registration was eventually renewed for the year 1993. The Government found in favor of the applicants, citing previous tribunal decisions and government rulings supporting the applicants' substantive right for rebate despite the delay in renewal communication.

3. Regarding the drawback claimed on packing materials, the applicants provided clarification on the specific brand rate of drawback sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. The Government analyzed the statutory provisions related to rebate and drawback, concluding that if drawback on packing materials for tea exports was availed, then the rebate claim on tea cannot be granted. The Government referred to previous decisions to support this conclusion.

4. Independently, the Government considered a past decision where applicants were allowed to avail rebate claims in preference to drawback, provided the amount of drawback already paid was refunded. Drawing parallels between Rule 12A and Rule 191A, the Government decided to grant the rebate subject to the applicants refunding the drawback amount paid. The revision application was deemed successful if the applicants accepted and complied with this condition within three months.

5. In conclusion, the Government ordered the granting of rebate subject to the refund of the drawback amount paid, as per the option provided.