9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was revealed that the merchant exporter have availed drawback of duty in respect of the goods for which the manufacturer has claimed the rebate of Central Excise duty paid at the time of clearance and hence, claims of rebate would result in double benefit. Thus the rebate claim was not found admissible in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Original, the applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before Government on following grounds : 4.1 That the appellant has filed the rebate claims under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, as amended the duty paid on finished goods through PLA Account. Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. There is no allegation of non-fulfilment of the substantial conditions prescribed for exports. If the applicant fulfils t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. YDB/191/RGD/2010. 4.4 That the procedure given in Notification No. 19/2004 read with Chapter 8 of the C.B.E. & C. Manual Supplementary Instruction has been followed. Further if the duty payment has been made and goods have been exported then rebate should not be denied There is no such allegation in the SCN that goods have not been exported as well as duty has not been paid. Without prejudice to the same, to satisfy that the goods are actually exported co-relations of the above mentioned documents has to be seen. 5. The applicant further through their written submission dated 3-10-2013 apart from reiterating contents of grounds of R.A., stated as under :- 5.1 In the instant case drawback is granted for the Customs portion, to the merchant exporter M/s. Fair Exports (India) Pvt. Ltd. on the same exported goods for which the manufacturer M/s. Padam Fashion had claimed for rebate on duty paid on final products being exported, admittedly they have declared not to have claimed drawback on the same exported goods. This declaration by the manufacturer is treated as misdeclaration by both the lower authorities, though they specifically mentioned in their respective Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of duty drawback. The applicant's rebate claims were rejected on the ground that as drawback had been availed allowing rebate will amount to double benefit, which is not admissible. It is held in the impugned Orders that in the instant cases there is no dispute that the merchant exporter has claimed duty drawback which includes Customs, Central Excise, & Service Tax duties. The applicants have failed to prove anything to the contrary with supporting documents. 10. Now, Government proceeds to decide the issue of admissibility of rebate claims taking into account the harmonious and combined reading of statutory provision relating to rebate as well as duty drawback scheme. Government notes that the term Drawback has been defined in Rule 2(a) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (as amended) as under :- "(a) "drawback" in relation to any goods manufactured in India, and exported, means the rebate of duty chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used in the manufacture of such products". The said definition makes it clear that drawback is rebate of duty chargeable on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that for violation of drawback notification, the drawback should be denied and rebate claim which is in accordance with provision of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, may be allowed, is not acceptable since the applicant failed to prove that input stage rebate of duty in the form of duty drawback of Excise portion has not been availed by them and extending another benefit of rebate of duty paid on exported goods will definitely amount to double benefit. Such a contention of the applicant is also not found sustainable in view of the position that drawback of Excise portion has already been availed, the rebate is not admissible in light of the Customs, Central Excise Duties & Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 which state that no separate claim for rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002 will be made in such a situation. Applicant's claim could have been considered if they had repaid the duty drawback of availed Central Excise portion. In view of this position, the rebate of duty paid on exported goods is not admissible in these cases. 12. As regards citing of individual interpretations/applicability of above mentioned Notifications/Case Laws, Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
