2016 (7) TMI 805 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate / refund claim - Rule 18 - merchant export - it was revealed that there was no acknowledgement with regard to Let Export Order by the Customs Authority except for an initial of Superintendent of Customs. Further it was also revealed that the ARE-I did not bear any certificate regarding self-sealing as provided under Clause 6 of Chapter 8 (Export under claim for Rebate) of Supplementary Instructions. It also did not contain the declaration to the effect as to who will claim the Duty Drawback i.e. whether by the manufacturer or by the Merchant Exporter. Held that - Government notes that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into consideration the full facts of the case in as much as that whether the applicant has claimed drawback on customs portion and rebate on finished goods. Also there is no bar on availment of rebate on duty paid on exported finished goods w.r.t export made under DEPB Scheme. As such reliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) on above said High Court is not applicable to the present case as the applicant has claimed to avail benefit of Drawback of Customs portion and rebate on finished goods. Government further observes that another contention of the applicant is that original authority as well as appellate authority have erred while giving their findings that the ARE-I did not bear any certificate regarding self-sealing. They have claimed that the said export goods have been made by the applicant themselves under the examination and sealing of Range Superintendent and Inspector while referring to the ARE-I. In this regard Government observes that under such circumstances being a matter of fact the claim of the applicant for the purposed correlation of duty paid goods with the goods exported needs to be verified on the basis of original documents. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Simultaneous availment of duty drawback and rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claims.
3. Admissibility of interest on delayed refunds under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Simultaneous Availment of Duty Drawback and Rebate:
The applicant, a Merchant Exporter, filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for duty paid on exported Cast Iron Products. The Assistant Commissioner rejected these claims, citing discrepancies and the simultaneous availment of duty drawback and rebate, which was deemed as availing double benefits. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The applicant argued that Rule 18 does not restrict the grant of rebate even if duty drawback is allowed, supported by CBEC Circular No. 35/2010-Cus and Notification No. 68/2011-Cus(NT). The Government observed that the relevant notifications and circulars do not restrict rebate of duty paid on exported goods when the customs portion of duty drawback is availed. The Government cited previous decisions, including M/S Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd and M/S Mars International, which support the applicant's position that simultaneous claims do not amount to double benefits.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The Assistant Commissioner noted procedural discrepancies in the rebate claims, such as the absence of a "Let Export Order" acknowledgment and a self-sealing certificate on ARE-I forms. The applicant contended that the goods were examined and sealed by the Range Superintendent and Inspector, as evidenced by the ARE-I forms. The Government observed that these procedural issues need verification based on original documents and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, ensuring all facts and documentary evidence are reviewed.

3. Admissibility of Interest on Delayed Refunds:
The applicant claimed interest on delayed refunds under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arguing that the refund application was submitted beyond the three-month period. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the rebate claims, making the question of interest moot. The Government noted that since the rebate claim itself is under reconsideration, the issue of interest on delayed refunds should also be revisited based on the final decision on the rebate claims.

Conclusion:
The Government set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration, taking into account the observations and original documentary evidence. The Government emphasized the need for a reasonable opportunity of hearing for all concerned parties. The Revision Applications were disposed of accordingly.