2010 (5) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise

Refund- the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersible pumps and parts thereof falling under Chapter subheading 8413.13 of the first schedule to the CETA, 1985. The appellant received export order for supply of submersible pumps and DC sets. The appellants have filed ARE-1 in respect of goods manufactured by them and executed necessary bond/LUT and debited from the bond amount to the extent of the duty involved on the goods manufactured by them. In the same ARE-1, they also mentioned the DC sets as bought out items and duty involved as nil as they were not required to pay any duty on the said goods. The appellants claimed the refund in respect of duty paid by the supplier on DC sets on the ground that the said DC sets have been exported out of India along with submersible pumps manufactured by them. The original authority, after granting personal hearing has rejected the refund. The order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Held that- export under Bond to relate to pumps manufactured only. Procedure for export by merchant exporters not followed. Original authority rightly refund claim for want of jurisdiction. No valid reason for interference with decision.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim for duty paid on bought out DC sets exported along with submersible pumps
- Applicability of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002
- Consideration of DC sets as part or accessory of submersible pump
- Jurisdictional authority for refund claim on DC sets

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the refund claim for duty paid on DC sets bought out and exported alongside submersible pumps. The appellant contended that the duty paid on the DC sets, procured from a different manufacturer, should be refunded under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant asserted that the DC sets were exported in conjunction with submersible pumps under a common purchase order, emphasizing the duty paid nature of the DC sets and the export thereof. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant was not the manufacturer of the DC sets but a buyer, akin to a merchant-exporter. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim that the DC sets should be considered as parts or accessories of the submersible pump, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellant had not followed the requisite formalities for export as a merchant exporter, indicating that the DC sets were not exported under the appropriate procedures. The Tribunal emphasized that the DC sets were distinct from the submersible pumps and were not eligible for consideration under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Additionally, the Tribunal pointed out that the appellant could have availed other options, such as claiming drawback or exporting the DC sets directly without duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's claim for refund on DC sets, manufactured in a different jurisdiction, was rightly rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to jurisdictional constraints.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently rejected the appeal, thereby affirming the denial of the refund claim for duty paid on the bought out DC sets exported alongside the submersible pumps.