Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (8) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irecting the respondents to forthwith uphold the rebate amount sanctioned by the lower authority on exports made by the petitioner through merchant exporter by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. 2. Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a manufacturer / exporter engaged in the manufacture of pesticides for and on behalf of one M/s. Syngenta India Limited. The petitioner had manufactured pesticides and through M/s. Syngenta India Limited exported the same. Rebate claims, eight in number were filed by the petitioner seeking rebate of duty paid on excisable goods exported by them through merchant exporter, namely, M/s. Syngenta India Limited. These rebate claims were filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods were manufactured by the petitioner and exported, the manufacturer had an option to pay the duty on intermediate products and on final products and upon its clearance, claim rebate once the goods are actually exported. In light of this position, therefore, after obtaining a Disclaimer Certificate from M/s. Syngenta Limited, the petitioner filed the rebate forms claiming rebate of the goods that were exported and the duty paid on such goods. The original authority granted the rebate but the Appellate Authority rejected the request and reversed the order on the principle that there was "unjust enrichment" on the part of the petitioner. 3.1. Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel, would further submit that though the appellate order agree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... approaching the Central Government by way of a revision. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the following undisputed position emerges: 5.1. The petitioner had manufactured pesticides for and on behalf of a manufacturer exporter of excisable goods. Such excisable goods were then exported by them through such merchant exporter, namely, M/s. Syngenta India Limited to various destinations. Applications were made by the petitioner for claiming rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules after obtaining Disclaimer Certificate from the merchant exporter. The claim of revision and rebate under the Act and the Rules are governed by Sec. 11(B) of the Central Excise Act and R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n receipt of any application, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund : Provided that the amount of duty of excise and interest, if any, paid on such duty as determined by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to - (a) rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rocessing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification." 5.2 Reading of the impugned orders i.e. of the Appellate Authority and that of the Tribunal, would indicate that the authorities below in principle have accepted the fact that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in case of rebate / refund cases. To quote, the order of the Appellate Authority reads thus: "Thus, the legal position in the matter is that the bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted in case of rebate / refund cases involving export of goods." 5.3 In the instant case, the respondent had exported goods through merchant exporter M/s. Syngenta I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates