2013 (6) TMI 679 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Requisite declaration filed much after processing and export of the goods - Held that - condition and procedures prescribed in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) r/w Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual on supplementary instructions has not been followed. The declaration of input and output has neither been filed before processing and export of goods nor any expost facto approval is granted by competent authority. In such a situation the use of duty paid inputs in the manufacture of exported goods cannot be determined correctly. As such, the input rebate claim is rightly held inadmissible by lower authorities. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate of excise duty under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) based on procedural compliance and substantive export; Adjudication of rebate claim by Central Government under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Cooper Pharma Ltd. filing a rebate claim for excise duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing export goods under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.). The claim was rejected due to a delay in filing the requisite declaration after the export of goods, violating the notification's conditions. The applicants contended that procedural lapses should not deny them the rebate as the substantive fact of export was not in doubt. They argued that the purpose of export promotion schemes is to boost exports and any technical deviations should be condoned if the primary requirement of export is met. However, the government noted that the declaration of input and output was not filed before export, as required by the notification, and no retroactive approval was obtained. Consequently, the claim was deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with the notification's procedures.

The adjudicating authority emphasized the importance of fulfilling the conditions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) regarding the filing of declarations before export. The authority highlighted that the verification of input-output ratios by the Deputy Commissioner before export is crucial to prevent duty evasion. In this case, the claimant exported goods before filing the necessary declaration, leading to the rejection of the rebate claim. The government upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the failure to follow the prescribed procedures rendered the input rebate claim ineligible. Consequently, the revision application was rejected for lacking merit, affirming the decision to deny the rebate claim.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the importance of procedural compliance with notification requirements for claiming rebates on excise duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing export goods. The case highlighted the significance of timely filing declarations and obtaining necessary approvals before exporting goods to ensure the correct utilization of duty paid inputs. The government's decision to reject the rebate claim underscored the adherence to procedural guidelines to prevent misuse and evasion of excise duty benefits, ultimately upholding the lower authorities' rulings in denying the claim.