2020 (10) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - Rejection of Rebate Claim - case of Revenue is that as the issue relates to rebate of duty, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal whereas the right forum is Revisionary Authority, Additional/ Joint Secretary to the Government of India - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that appellant have claimed rebate of duty paid on the goods exported through merchant exporters. Therefore, even though the Commissioner has given findings as regards unjust-enrichment, the nature of rebate is not altered. As against the export of goods, the duty is refunded as rebate claim and not as a normal refund. Therefore, we are of the clear view that this case relates to rebate of duty paid on export of goods. As per Section 35B (1) proviso (b), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in the cases relates to rebate of duty. The appellant has liberty to approach the right form, Additional/ Joint Secretary to Government of India, Revisionary Authority by filing revision application. The appeal disposed of as non maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction without going into merits of the case.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rebate claim of Excise Duty paid on goods exported through merchant exporters. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the appeal in cases related to rebate of duty.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the rejection of the rebate claim of Excise Duty paid on goods exported through merchant exporters. The Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection, stating that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal related to rebate of duty, as the appropriate forum is the Revisionary Authority, Additional/Joint Secretary to the Government of India. The Counsel for the Appellant argued that since the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were sold to merchant exporters and the duty incidence was passed on, the case should be considered as a refund matter, making it appealable in the Tribunal.

The Authorised Representative cited various judgments to support the claim that the case pertains to rebate, making the appeal not maintainable in the Tribunal. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed claimed a rebate of duty paid on goods exported through merchant exporters. Despite the Commissioner's findings on unjust enrichment, the nature of the rebate remained unchanged. The Tribunal clarified that in cases of duty rebate on exported goods, the duty is refunded as a rebate claim, not a regular refund. Referring to Section 35B(1) proviso (b), the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction in cases related to rebate of duty. The appellant was advised to approach the appropriate forum, the Revisionary Authority, by filing a revision application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable on jurisdictional grounds without delving into the merits of the case.

In response to the Counsel's request, the Registry was directed to return the appeal papers to the appellant. The judgment was dictated in open court, emphasizing the Tribunal's decision on the jurisdictional aspect of the case.