1993 (7) TMI 102 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Rule 191A of Central Excise Rules, Claim for rebate under Rule 191A, Relationship between duty paid and drawback, Applicability of case laws on changing concessions.

In the judgment delivered by Shri S.S. Khosla, Jt. Secretary, the revision application was filed by M/s. Swatantra Bharat Mills against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi, upholding the decision of the Assistant Collector. The case revolved around the procedure followed by the applicants under Rule 191A of Central Excise Rules during a specific period when consignments of cotton terry-towels were exported. The applicants had claimed both under the Drawback Rules and Rule 191A, with the former being sanctioned while the latter was rejected by the authorities.

During the hearing, the applicants' representative argued that the rebate claim under Rule 191A could only be denied if a claim for rebate of the "said duty" had been made under the Drawback Rules. The contention was that since the "said duty" referred to the duty paid on yarn/fabrics, and the drawback was related to the dye component only, the rebate under Rule 191A should be granted. However, the government disagreed, stating that there was no indication to break up the words "said duty" to mean duty on individual components and questioned the correctness of the party's claim regarding the drawback.

The representative cited case laws where the assessee could opt for a more beneficial concession, as held in various judgments. Notably, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Roman Boards Ltd. allowed a manufacturer to change the option to a more advantageous notification subsequently, even after availing benefits under a different notification initially. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of opting for the more beneficial option, as seen in previous cases.

Considering the principles laid down in the case laws and the need to avoid a technical and narrow view in export-related matters, the government ordered that the applicant should be allowed to avail rebate under Rule 191A instead of the drawback claim, provided the claim was valid from the beginning. The judgment directed the refund of the amount of drawback already paid by the applicants to the government, thus allowing the revision application in favor of the applicants.