2017 (6) TMI 575 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate claim - rejection of the rebate claim of the petitioners on the ground that the same is directly opposed to the judgment of this court in the case of Zenith Spinners v. Union of India, 2005 (11) TMI 440 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that The CBEC cannot exercise power under Rule 19 of the Rules to negate a notification issued by the Central Government under Rule 18 of the Rules - Held that - the decision of this court in the case of Zenith Spinners, is applicable to the period prior to the issuance of the N/N. 10/2004 dated 02.06.2004, whereas in the facts of the present case, the rebate claims are after the applicability of the N/N. 10/2004 dated 02.06.2004 and hence, the same is not applicable to the present case. Since the rebate claims have been disallowed solely on the basis of N/N. 10/2004- CE(NT) dated 3rd June, 2004, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority and the rebate claims deserve to be allowed. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
2. Applicability of the Notification No.10/2004-CE(NT) dated 3rd June 2004.
3. Rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004.
4. Compliance with High Court decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority:
The petitioners contended that the adjudicating authority's order was "ex-facie without jurisdiction" as it contradicted the High Court's decision in Zenith Spinners v. Union of India, which declared Notification No.10/2004-CE(NT) ultra vires. The court emphasized that authorities in Gujarat must adhere to High Court rulings, and the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise cannot distinguish such pronouncements.

2. Applicability of the Notification No.10/2004-CE(NT) dated 3rd June 2004:
The adjudicating authority rejected the petitioners' rebate claims based on this notification, arguing it applied to the period after its issuance. However, the High Court had previously invalidated this notification entirely, not just retrospectively. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court's decision, further solidifying its invalidity.

3. Rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004:
The petitioners exported goods on payment of duty and claimed rebates under Rule 18. The adjudicating authority's rejection of these claims, based on the invalidated notification, was deemed incorrect. Rule 18 allows for rebates on duty-paid exports, and the petitioners' compliance with this rule entitled them to the claimed rebates.

4. Compliance with High Court decisions:
The adjudicating authority's reliance on the invalidated notification was in direct conflict with the High Court's ruling in Zenith Spinners. The High Court reiterated that its decisions must be followed, and the adjudicating authority's attempt to distinguish the ruling was unfounded.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the rebate claims, reaffirming the invalidity of Notification No.10/2004-CE(NT) and upholding the petitioners' entitlement to rebates under Rule 18. The court underscored the necessity for adjudicating authorities to comply with High Court decisions, ensuring uniform application of the law.