2020 (3) TMI 741 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate of Central Excise duty - rejection of rebate claims on the premise that the applicant is not a merchant exporter but he is a principal manufacturer as the ownership of the goods remained with them during the manufacturing process - HELD THAT - The Government holds that rejection of rebate claims on account of filing before the wrong forum is not justified in the present case. It is further held that the central excise authorities (erstwhile) having jurisdiction over the manufacturer s unit will be the appropriate authority to consider these rebate claims since the goods for purpose of export have been removed from the manufacturer s premises on ARE-Is after payment of central excise duty. Verification of duty paid character and identity of the export goods can be established at their end. The Government allows the applicant to file the rebate claims with the erstwhile central excise authorities having jurisdiction over M/s. Saraswati Agro Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Dera Bassi, District Mohali, Punjab - revision application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of filing rebate claims for export goods.
- Status of the applicant as a merchant exporter.
- Interpretation of relevant circulars and judgments.
- Justification for rejection of rebate claims.

Jurisdiction of Filing Rebate Claims:
The judgment revolves around eight Revision Applications filed against Orders-in-Appeal rejecting rebate claims of Central Excise duty for exported goods. The applicant exported goods to Singapore after procuring them from a manufacturer in Punjab. Initially, rebate claims were filed in Raigad Commissionerate but were later withdrawn and re-filed before the Maritime Commissioner in Delhi. The rejection of rebate claims was based on the premise that the applicant should have filed claims with their jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner as they were considered a principal manufacturer, not a merchant exporter.

Status of the Applicant as a Merchant Exporter:
The applicant contended that they were registered as a manufacturer-cum-merchant exporter and submitted relevant documents to support their claim. However, the respondent argued that the applicant was not registered as a merchant exporter with the relevant authority. The judgment analyzed the agreements submitted by the applicant and the timing of their registration with CHEMIXIL and DGFT, ultimately concluding that the applicant's credentials as a merchant exporter were not established during the period in question.

Interpretation of Circulars and Judgments:
The judgment referred to Circular No. 508/04/2000-CX, emphasizing that merchant exporters can file rebate claims with the appropriate authority if the manufacturer provides a disclaimer certificate. Additionally, it cited a Supreme Court judgment highlighting the distinction between procedural and substantive conditions for exemption and refund, emphasizing the importance of procedural conditions. These references were crucial in determining the validity of the rejection of rebate claims based on filing before the wrong forum.

Justification for Rejection of Rebate Claims:
After analyzing the submissions and relevant circulars/judgments, the Government held that the rejection of rebate claims due to filing before the wrong forum was not justified in this case. It was concluded that the central excise authorities having jurisdiction over the manufacturer's unit should consider these claims, as the goods were removed from the manufacturer's premises for export after payment of central excise duty. The judgment allowed the applicant to file rebate claims with the central excise authorities having jurisdiction over the manufacturer, thereby allowing the revision applications in favor of the applicant.