2011 (1) TMI 388 - HC - Central Excise

Rebate of duty - Export - Readymade garments - the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the claim of the petitioner and ordered for refund/return of the duty paid as rebate - Only on technical ground the revisional authority having entertain the appeal deprived the benefit extended to the petitioner as per Rule 18 under Rule 19 of the Rules which is erroneous - Matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for Excise to consider the incidental articles used like pins hangars and elastics would form independent material over which duty has to be levied or it is incidental and it does carry any rebate and pass appropriate orders according to law taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of annexure K passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Entitlement to rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Interpretation of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
4. Authority's decision on the claim for refund of duty paid on exported goods.
5. Consideration of incidental articles in the export of readymade garments.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company manufacturing readymade garments, sought to quash annexure K passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming it to be illegal and contrary to Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner contended that they are entitled to a rebate of duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Rules. The dispute arose when the Department issued a show cause notice alleging a violation of the conditions of notification under Rule 19, which the petitioner denied, asserting their right to the rebate. The Commissioner for Appeals initially allowed the claim, but the revisional authority overturned this decision, prompting the petitioner to file a petition seeking relief.

The petitioner argued that Rule 18 entitles them to a rebate, having paid a substantial amount as duty for the exported goods. They emphasized that incidental articles used in manufacturing and export, such as pins and hangers, are exempted from duty under the notification by the Central Government. The Commissioner for Appeals correctly recognized this exemption for incidental articles, leading to the allowance of the petitioner's claim for refund by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the revisional authority's intervention on technical grounds disrupted this process, contrary to the provisions of Rule 18 and Rule 19, which the petitioner deemed erroneous.

The High Court, after hearing the arguments from both parties, set aside the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for a detailed consideration. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to determine whether incidental articles like pins and hangers should be considered independent materials subject to duty or incidental items eligible for rebate. The court instructed the Assistant Commissioner to make a decision in accordance with the law, considering the petitioner's submissions.

In conclusion, the petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the correct interpretation and application of Rule 18 and Rule 19 in determining the entitlement to a rebate of duty paid on exported goods, particularly concerning the treatment of incidental articles in the export process.