2013 (1) TMI 636 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rule 18 of CER 2002 Rebate of duty Whether rebate should be allowed, where goods are not cleared form the factory gate at the time of clearance for export Assesse filed rebate claims of duty paid on tea and packaging materials used in the blending/processing of Indian Black Tea exported Adjudicating authority sanctioned the rebate claim on the quantity of tea which was purchased from market but did not consider part quantity of tea which was purchased from the tea gardens who were availing benefit of Area Based Exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E. (N.T.) Held that - Assesse have followed the procedure laid down in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), and Part VI of Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions . Moreover assessee had procured tea for further processing direct from manufacturer/gardener on valid duty paying documents and had also obtained permission to process/export the tea, in terms of Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) Part VI of Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C. Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions has relaxed the condition of export of tea direct from factory Rebate claims under Rule 18 should be sanctioned Govt. therefore sets aside the impugned order-in-appeal Revision application succeeded Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim on duty paid on tea and packaging materials used in blending/processing of Indian Black Tea for export.
2. Disallowance of rebate claim due to benefit availed under Area Based Exemption Notification.
3. Appeal against the order-in-original and subsequent order-in-appeal.
4. Revision application filed before Central Government under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute over rebate claims of duty paid on tea and packaging materials used in the blending/processing of Indian Black Tea for export. The exporter filed rebate claims in accordance with the special procedure for export of tea under claim of rebate. The adjudicating authority initially sanctioned the rebate claim but did not consider the part quantity of tea purchased from gardens availing benefits under Area Based Exemption Notification. The rebate claims were later sanctioned based on an amendment to Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the Finance Act, 2008.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, disallowing the rebate claim, stating that the goods were not cleared for export at the time of clearance from the factory gate, a prerequisite for claiming duty rebate. The applicant, aggrieved by this decision, filed a Revision Application before the Central Government under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. The Central Government reviewed the case and noted a delay in filing the revision application. However, citing judgments from the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi, the Government condoned the delay as the appeal was initially filed before the wrong forum. The Government also observed that the rebate claim was correctly sanctioned by the adjudicating authority under Rule 18, considering the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2008.

4. The Government analyzed the amendment in Rule 18, which allowed rebate claims on exported tea cleared by manufacturers availing benefits under the Area Based Exemption Notification. The Government found that the applicants followed the prescribed procedures and obtained necessary permissions for processing and exporting the tea. As a result, the Government set aside the order-in-appeal and restored the original order sanctioning the rebate claims.

5. In conclusion, the Revision Application succeeded, and the Government ordered to set aside the order-in-appeal, restoring the rebate claims sanctioned by the adjudicating authority under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the decision-making process by the authorities involved.