2018 (9) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Rebate of Excise duty - export of goods - Jurisdiction - case of Revenue is that the goods were not cleared from the factory but from the warehouse in Raipur. The refund claim was filed with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, who neither has jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse - Held that - The issue involved relates to rebate of excise duty on goods exported out of India. CESTAT has no jurisdiction to decide appeals on orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on such matters as per the first proviso to Section 35B - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal condonation, Rebate of Central Excise duty, Jurisdiction for sanctioning rebate, Procedural lapses in rebate claim, Appeal against Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal condonation: The judgment begins with the consideration of an application seeking condonation of a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. The delay is deemed marginal, and the judge decides to condone it, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.

2. Rebate of Central Excise duty: The appellant, a merchant exporter, filed a claim seeking rebate of duty for exporting excisable goods. However, a discrepancy arose as the application for removal of goods was filed with the wrong jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise. The lower authority sanctioned the rebate, but the revenue contended that it was wrongly done based on specific conditions outlined in the notification.

3. Jurisdiction for sanctioning rebate: The crux of the issue lies in the jurisdictional aspect of sanctioning the rebate. The revenue argued that the Asst. Commissioner who sanctioned the rebate did not have the proper jurisdiction, as per the designated officers outlined in the notification. The first appellate authority set aside the Order-in-Original, leading to the appeal.

4. Procedural lapses in rebate claim: The appellant raised several grounds in their appeal, emphasizing that the export was certified, foreign exchange was received, and citing a CBEC circular supporting their position. They argued that even if there was a procedural lapse, the substantive benefit of rebate should not be denied solely on procedural grounds.

5. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal: The appellant contended that the Order-in-Appeal should be set aside, highlighting the jurisdictional interpretation of the term "warehouse" and the authority to sanction the rebate. They also referenced a proviso regarding erroneous refunds, challenging the reversal of the Order-in-Original.

6. Final Decision: After considering the arguments from both sides, the judge concluded that the issue at hand pertained to the rebate of excise duty on goods exported out of India, indicating that CESTAT lacked jurisdiction to decide appeals on such matters as per the proviso to Section 35B. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

Therefore, the judgment delves into the intricacies of jurisdictional authority, procedural compliance, and the substantive entitlement to rebate, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the lack of jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal in such matters.