2006 (3) TMI 186 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Rebate claims - Duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of export goods - Exemption Notification - manufacturing of refined edbile oil - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that the respondents have manufactured and exported impugned goods i.e. de-oiled cake out of India. It is also admitted fact that the respondents have procured input hexona on payment of Central Excise duty and such input has been used for manufacturing of the goods exported. It is also admitted fact that the respondents are eligible for input rebate under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) as evident from the finding of Commissioner (Appeals). Govt. further agrees with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Rule 18 and Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), issued thereunder does not mandate that all the goods manufactured by the claimant should be exported so as to be entitled to rebate of duty paid on inputs. The applicant Commissioner s another pleadings is that in the instant case the assesee did not file any declaration with the Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer nor declared any input-output norms in their declaration mandatorily required under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) which is also not verified by the jurisdictional Dy./Asst. Commissioner. Thus Govt. finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and Govt. accordingly upholds the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The Revision Applications are accordingly rejected. So ordered.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rebate claim rejection based on usage of Hexane in manufacturing process.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 41/2001-CE(NT.) dated 26-6-2001.
3. Compliance with input-output norms for claiming duty rebate.
4. Procedural requirements for availing exemption under the notification.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the rejection of rebate claims by the Commissioner of Central Excise against a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting de-oiled cake. The issue revolves around the usage of Hexane in the manufacturing process, specifically whether the input was solely used for goods meant for export.

2. The interpretation of Notification No. 41/2001-CE(NT.) dated 26-6-2001 is crucial in determining the eligibility for duty rebate on inputs used in the manufacturing process. The Commissioner of Central Excise contended that the company did not fulfill the conditions specified in the notification, leading to the rejection of the rebate claims.

3. Compliance with input-output norms specified in the Exim Policy is another significant aspect of the case. The company argued that the input-output ratio was in line with the norms and that similar cases had been decided in their favor by the Government of India previously.

4. The procedural requirements for availing exemption under the notification, including filing declarations and verifying input-output norms, were highlighted by the Commissioner of Central Excise as essential for claiming the duty rebate. The company, on the other hand, emphasized that they had followed the necessary procedures and met the requirements specified in the Exim Policy.

5. After considering the arguments and submissions from both parties, the Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that the company had exported the goods and used the duty-paid inputs in the manufacturing process. The Government found no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and rejected the Revision Applications accordingly.