2016 (11) TMI 483 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the respondents are right in imposing any condition while granting rebate on duty beyond the conditions prescribed under rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 - Held that - the revisional authority erred while holding that the petitioner should have also maintained and adhered the procedure given under the SION norms - Petition allowed - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rebate claim on duty paid on materials used in manufacturing of export goods.
2. Imposition of conditions by the revisional authority beyond those prescribed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, submitted rebate claims on duty paid on materials used in manufacturing export goods, which were allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. An appeal against the rejection of the claim was also dismissed. The revisional authority later modified the order, allowing the claim subject to adherence to SION norms of Export and Import Policy. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the conditions imposed went beyond those specified in Rule 18 of the Rules. The Court noted that Rule 18 allows rebate subject to conditions specified in notifications, and the petitioner had fulfilled all prescribed conditions. The Court held that Rule 18 does not mention adherence to SION norms, and the revisional authority erred in imposing such a condition. Consequently, the Court declared the revisional authority's order erroneous and restored the original orders approving the rebate claim.

2. The key issue for adjudication was whether the revisional authority was justified in imposing additional conditions, specifically adherence to SION norms, while granting rebate on duty paid beyond the conditions prescribed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Court emphasized that Rule 18 allows for rebate subject to conditions specified in notifications, and the petitioner had complied with all prescribed conditions. The Court found that the revisional authority's insistence on SION norms was not supported by Rule 18, leading to the conclusion that the authority had erred in imposing additional conditions. As a result, the Court allowed the writ petition, declaring the revisional authority's order as invalid and reinstating the original orders approving the rebate claim.