9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage to like Indian goods due to high excise duty on their inputs and to provide a level playing field to indigenous goods which have to bear various internal taxes. However, such duty is not an excise duty. It is by now well settled that in a taxing statute there is no scope of any intendment and the same has to be construed in terms of the language employed in the statute and that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the rules and the notification. Procedure laid in the notification dated 06.09.2004 provides for sealing of the goods and examination at the place of the despatch. Undisputedly, in the case of the present petitioner, no such procedure has been followed. Moreover, the notification defines duty for the purpose of the notification to mean the excise duty collected under the enactments stated therein. Undisputedly, the duties paid by the petitioner in relation to the goods in question do not fall within the enactments stipulated in the notification. Clearly therefore, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the basic requirements for availing of the benefits under the notification. - pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the supplier has given disclaimer certificate in favour of the petitioner company. The petitioner company, therefore, lodged a rebate claim of the duty suffered on the raw materials received by the supplier on payment of duty including CVD. The petitioner filed rebate claims under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the amount of the duty paid on the goods, which are ultimately supplied by the DTA dealers or manufacturers for the period from February, 2010 to August, 2011. The respondent authorities returned such rebate claims on the ground that the same should be filed before the Maritime Commissioner and also raised an objection that ARE-1 is a mandatory document for claiming the rebate, whereas the petitioner had filed rebate claim on the basis of invoices. The petitioner once again resubmitted all the claims before the concerned authority, which came to be disallowed on the ground that rebate shall be available only on the goods manufactured and processed in India and in the present case the goods were imported by the dealer and no further processes were undertaken and straightaway transferred to the petitioner company. The petitioner being of the confirmed opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article. Therefore, any importer, who imports goods from foreign countries, is liable to pay duties including additional duties as if such goods are manufactured in India by way of deeming fiction. It was submitted that the statute provides for a set off of duties suffered/paid on the goods exported and therefore, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or process of such goods. In the present case the petitioner had paid the additional duties in the form of CVD in lieu of central excise duties on the goods imported and therefore, had filed rebate claim of the CVD already paid and available because, for the supplier it was export and therefore he is eligible to get the set off in the form of rebate. It was, accordingly, urged that such a benefit, though available under the Act, cannot be denied by any authority on a flimsy ground. It was submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which have to bear various internal taxes. However, such duty is not an excise duty and accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the goods have borne countervailing duty, such goods remain imported goods. It was submitted that duties paid under the Customs Tariff Act cannot be equated with the duties paid under the Central Excise Act. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the rebate of the duties paid by it on such goods. Referring to rule 18 of the rules, it was pointed out that the same clearly speaks of the duty paid on excisable goods. The attention of the court was drawn to the definition of the expression excisable goods', as defined under section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, to submit that such goods are the goods specified in the First Schedule and Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as being subject to a duty of excise. Therefore, for the purpose of being eligible to get rebate under rule 18 of the rules, the goods have to be subjected to central excise duty, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the goods in question have not borne any excise duty. Reference was also invited to section 3 of the Act to point out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. Further, under Section 3(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, a duty of excise has been defined as a duty of excise to be called the Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) on all excisable goods (Excluding goods produced or manufactured in SEZs) which are produced or manufactured in India as, and at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). The goods indicated in your rebate claim applications have not been produced or manufactured or processed in India but are imported goods, which apparently have been sold to you directly by the Registered importers without any manufacturing or processing done on them in India. In exercise of the powers conferred under the abovementioned Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Central Government issued Notification No.19/2004- CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004, which states that rebate of the whole of the duty paid on all excisable goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not bring in to existence any commercially known new commodity, then such processing will not be considered a manufacturing activity and nor the goods exported after such minor processing would be considered as excisable goods to become eligible for the benefit of this Rule. As per CBEC 's Circular No.155/66/95 dated 17.10.1995, rebate on export is not allowed on market purchased goods without any further processing. AT Srl. No.8 of the said Circular, the term warehouse has been defined as a place duly approved by the Commissioner for such operation, where the good in factory packed condition are processed prior to export. Under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the persons requiring Registration under the said Act, has been specified as 'any prescribed person who is engaged in (i) the production or manufacture or any process of production or manufacture of any specified goods in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, or (ii) the wholesale purchase or sale (whether on how own account or as a broker or commission agent) or the storage of any specified goods included in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, shall get himself registered with the proper officer. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es inter alia to provide for grant of rebate on duty paid on goods which are exported out of India or shipped for consumption on a voyage to any port outside India. Primarily, the Act relates to the goods manufactured in India and the power conferred upon the Central Government is to grant rebate of the duty paid on the goods exported out of India. Rule 18 of the rules makes provision for rebate of duty and lays down that where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or process of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions and limitations and fulfilment of such procedure as may be specified in the notification. In exercise of powers conferred by rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the Central Government has issued a notification No.19/2004- CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 directing that there shall be grant of rebate of the whole of the duty paid on all excisable goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 exported to any country other than Nepal and Bhutan subject to the conditions, limitations and proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner that the dealers have imported the goods and paid all duties including CVD, which is equivalent to the central excise duties as if the goods are manufactured in India. However, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Countervailing Duty paid at the time of import of goods is a duty equal to the central excise duty leviable on such goods if manufactured in India. Such duty is levied to offset the disadvantage to like Indian goods due to high excise duty on their inputs and to provide a level playing field to indigenous goods which have to bear various internal taxes. However, such duty is not an excise duty. 8. It is by now well settled that in a taxing statute there is no scope of any intendment and the same has to be construed in terms of the language employed in the statute and that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that the matter should be governed wholly by the language of the rules and the notification. As noticed earlier, the procedure laid in the notification dated 06.09.2004 provides for sealing of the goods and examination at the place of the despatch. Undisputedly, in the case of the present petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
