Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1380 - HC - Central ExciseRejection of Rebate Claim - rejection on the ground that the petitioner had availed higher rate of drawback for the export which is available only when Cenvat facility has not been availed - petitioner failed to establish that it satisfied the condition No.15 of the notification No.92/2012 dated 04.10.2012 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of Rule 18 would show that such rebate would be granted by the Central Government by issuing notification on the duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations and fulfillment of such procedure as may be specified in the notification. As per this rule thus, upon export, an exporter is entitled to claim rebate on the duty paid on export goods as well as on materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods. This would of-course be subject to fulfillment of the conditions as may be prescribed. If no duty is paid, the claim would not fall in Rule 18 at all. When the petitioner, through its drawback claims, claimed the refund of excise duty which was granted also, Rule 18 would have no applicability. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Spentex Industries Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT] referring to the scheme of granting rebate under Rule 18 and facilities for export of goods without payment of duty under Rules 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 held that the rebate of duty paid by them on inputs as well as final product was available - This judgment thus rests on totally different facts. In fact a reversed anomaly would arise if the claim of the petitioner is accepted. If an exporter exercises option under Rule 19, he could export the goods without payment of duty. He would thereupon not be entitled to claim duty drawback on such component. On the other hand an exporter, who opts for the rebate of duty under Rule 18 is allowed the rebate after claiming drawback as well, there would be double benefit and a clear case of anomaly. In this context, the question as to from which source of Cenvat credit the duty was paid, becomes redundant. The Assistant Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner, for the purpose of claiming drawback, had made a false declaration. If these observations are allowed to stand, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the drawback claims which are closed, would be under jeopardy. It is clarified that the department as well as this Court have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner having claimed and received the drawback of excise duty, could not thereafter claim rebate of the same component of duty. Petition dismissed.
|