2010 (2) TMI 921 - CGOVT - Customs

Rebate claim - applicant had availed exemption under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19-4-2002 while importing goods against Advance Licence and had utilized the goods Imported for manufacture of finished goods which were subsequently exported under claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002. Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. dated 19-4-2002 under Condition (v) stipulates that the exemption under the said Notification is available only if the facility under Rule 18 or 19 of Central Excise Rules 2002 are not availed - Commissioner (Appeals) has held that any person claiming rebate of duty cannot simultaneously undertake duty-free import of raw materials under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. and as a result the order of the original authority granting rebate has been set aside Held that - Govt. observes that the amendment or corrigendum to the notification are issued to make some changes or add certain phrases in the original notifications prospective applications In view of above corrigendum dated 17-5-2005 the applicant is eligible for claiming rebate of duty on exported goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 only prospectively applicant has exported the goods except in one case during the period i.e. March 2005 to May 2005 when the original Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. dated 10-09-2004 was applicable hence the rebate was not admissible in these cases. In case of export of goods relating to ARE-1 No. 30 dated 25-5-2005 involving duty of Rs. 8, 19, 299/- which were cleared/exported after the issue of corrigendum the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant and the same may be sanctioned to the applicant if the claim is otherwise in order Revision application is disposed off in terms of above

Summary

Issues:
Claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Interpretation of Notification No. 43/2002-Cus.; Compliance with conditions for claiming rebate; Applicability of amendments to notifications; Entitlement to rebate on exported goods.

Analysis:
The revision application was filed by M/s. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. The case revolved around the rebate claims filed by the applicants under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for goods exported on payment of duty from their cenvat account. The main contention raised was that the applicants were not eligible for rebate as they had availed exemption under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. while importing goods against Advance Licence, which stipulated that the exemption is available only if the facility under Rule 18 or 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the department's appeal, setting aside the original orders.

The applicant argued that they had fulfilled all conditions prescribed under Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) for claiming the rebate. They contended that the department's attempt to impose conditions not prescribed by statute was not sustainable. The applicant relied on judicial decisions emphasizing literal interpretation of statutes and argued that the department's interpretation was erroneous. They highlighted that the exemption under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. would not be availed if rebate of duty-paid inputs/raw materials used in the manufacture of exported goods was claimed.

The government observed that the applicant, working under Advance Licence Scheme and availing benefits under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus., was obligated to fulfill all specified conditions. However, considering the amendments to Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., the applicant was found eligible for rebate under Rule 18 as they had claimed rebate on finished goods exported. The government referred to a similar case involving M/s. Subhada to support its decision. It clarified that amendments to notifications have prospective application unless specified otherwise, making the applicant eligible for rebate only prospectively.

Upon reviewing the records, the government noted that the rebate was not admissible for exports during a specific period when the original notification was applicable. However, for exports after the issuance of the corrigendum, the rebate claim was found admissible. The revision application was disposed of accordingly, with the government ordering the sanctioning of rebate to the applicant for eligible cases.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complexities surrounding the eligibility for rebate under Rule 18, the interpretation of relevant notifications, compliance with conditions, the impact of amendments, and the entitlement to rebate on exported goods, providing a detailed analysis and resolution for each issue raised in the case.