2012 (10) TMI 188 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claims - duty paid from Cenvat credit account on goods exported - original authority did not find rebate claims admissible as the applicants had claimed duty drawback - Held that - Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on ones own volition cannot be treated as duty, but it has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the respondent in the manner in which it was paid as the said amount cannot be retained by the Government without any authority of law - applicant is eligible for re-credit as per law

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of rebate claims alongside duty drawback claims.
2. Legality of re-credit without a specific refund application.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B for claiming refund by way of rebate.

Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. RSWM Ltd. filing rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for duty paid from Cenvat credit account on exported goods, while also claiming duty drawback under Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. The original authority rejected the rebate claims due to the duty drawback claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, stating that re-credit tantamounts to refund requiring a separate application. The applicant argued that the Commissioner's contrary view from earlier decisions was impermissible, citing relevant case laws. The Assistant Commissioner had allowed re-credit, considering the duty payment as erroneous due to applicable exemptions. The applicant contended that the re-credit was justified under Section 11B for claiming refund by way of rebate.

2. The applicant further argued that a proper application under Section 11B was filed for claiming rebate, and the Assistant Commissioner's order allowing re-credit should be read as modified by the subsequent order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant emphasized that the Department cannot deprive them of their right to credit duty paid on exports, whether the duty was payable or not. The applicant maintained that the re-credit was correct under the circumstances and no separate request for refund was necessary in law.

3. The Government noted that the original authority rejected the rebate claim but allowed re-credit in the applicant's account. The respondent department appealed, arguing that re-credit without a specific refund application was improper. The Government referred to a High Court order stating that excess amounts paid voluntarily should be returned in the same manner. Applying this principle, the Government found the re-credit justified and set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restoring the impugned Order-in-Original. The Government concluded that the applicant was eligible for re-credit as per law, and the revision application succeeded accordingly.