2015 (4) TMI 208 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Partial claim sanctioned on the ground that part goods were not exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture or within permitted extended period in terms of Notification No.19/04-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 - original authority confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate - Held that - In view of previous GOI order confirmation of demand of ₹ 119480/- vide order-in-original dated 4.3.11 cannot sustain. The matter already stands remanded to the original authority. As such the impugned order-in-appeal/original are set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Export of goods within stipulated time.
3. Denial of rebate claim due to delay in export.
4. Interpretation of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT).
5. Legal principles regarding procedural infractions in export benefits.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a rebate claim filed by M/s Mission Vivacare Ltd. for the export of P or P Medicaments under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The claim was initially sanctioned but later challenged by the department on grounds of goods not being exported within the stipulated time period as per Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT).

2. The dispute arose when part of the goods were exported after six months from the date of clearance for export. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and issued a demand notice for the erroneously refunded rebate amount. The applicant contended that they had obtained permission for the delayed export within the extended period as per Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT).

3. The applicant argued that any delay in export beyond the stipulated time should be considered a procedural infraction or technical mistake, citing various legal precedents supporting the liberal interpretation of export benefits. The Government observed that the rebate claim was initially sanctioned but later challenged based on the timing of exports.

4. The Government's revision order dated 30.4.12 upheld the rebate claim for a portion of the goods exported within the extended period, directing a reassessment by the original authority. Consequently, the demand for the erroneously refunded rebate amount was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further adjudication.

5. The revision application was disposed of based on the Government's order, emphasizing the need for proper assessment of the rebate claim in light of the extension permission granted for delayed exports. The impugned orders were set aside, and the original authority was directed to re-examine the case as per the revision order.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural compliance of export regulations, the interpretation of relevant notifications, and the application of legal principles regarding export benefits in cases of delayed exports. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to stipulated timelines while allowing for reasonable extensions under applicable laws and notifications.