Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + Commissioner Central Excise - 2013 (2) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 56 - Commissioner - Central ExciseRebate of Excise duty - Rebate of excise duty suffered at raw material stage Appellant had filed one rebate claim for the raw materials used in the manufacture of final product exported which is exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 30/2004 C.E., dated 9-7-2004 - Held that - Rebate/drawback etc. are export-oriented schemes and unduly restricted and technical interpretation of procedure etc. is to be avoided in order not to defeat the very purpose of such schemes which serve as export incentive to boost export and earn foreign exchange and in case the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical breaches.- In Suksha International v. UOI 1899 (1) TMI 3 S.C. it has beenobserved that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided. Further appellant had submitted a letter to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of C.Ex. seeking permission for availing the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods used in the export product in incorporating therein the input-output ratio as 1 02 01 as per the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) prescribed in Foreign Trade Policy - All relevant documents like ARE-2, export invoice, Shipping Bill, Bill of lading & Invoices evidencing payment of Central Excise Duty on Nylon yarn used in the manufacture of Filament Twines that were exported were submitted - Appellant is entitled for rebate of duty claimed vide ARE-2 No. 02/2008-2009, dated 28-5-2008 - allow the appeal In favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rebate claim for excise duty on exported goods due to procedural violations and alleged non-payment of duty on inputs. Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Nylon Filament yarn for fishnet business, filed a rebate claim for excise duty paid on raw materials used in exported fishnet twine. The claim was rejected by the Lower Adjudicating Authority citing procedural lapses and non-borne duty incidence. 2. Grounds of appeal included statutory provisions allowing rebate on exported goods, compliance with CBEC manual instructions, absence of availed credit on duty paid yarn, and the contention that appellant had borne the duty incidence. 3. During the hearing, the appellant argued that denial of rebate based on duty exemption of final products was incorrect. They highlighted Central Excise Rules allowing rebate on duty paid raw materials used in exported goods. 4. The Commissioner analyzed the case records and submissions. It was found that the appellant imported Nylon chips with customs duty, converted to yarn by another entity, and duty paid on yarn was adjusted between related parties. The appellant exported twines made from duty paid yarn without claiming Cenvat credit. 5. The Commissioner noted that the issue revolved around rebate for exported goods and materials, not unjust enrichment. The appellant had informed authorities about export details and sought permission for rebate, which was not objected to by the department. 6. Referring to relevant case law, the Commissioner concluded that the denial of rebate based on procedural violations was unjustified. The appellant was deemed entitled to the rebate claimed, and the Lower Adjudicating Authority's decision was set aside in favor of the appellant. 7. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.
|