9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d goods exported under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The adjudicating authority rejected rebate claims on the ground that since applicant also availed the benefit of duty drawback (Customs as well as Central Excise) therefore, rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not admissible. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Orders-in-Original, applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government mainly on following grounds : 4.1 The language of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 makes it ample clear that there are two types of rebates allowed by the Government, both being separate and distinct, one being input stage and other being finished goods stage. The applicant have filed the rebate claim of duty paid on finished goods under the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Further, the definition of drawback give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous availment of drawback & rebate of inputs/materials used in manufacture of export goods. This is not the case here. The applicant have not availed the rebate of input stage duties along with drawback. They have availed the rebate of "duty paid on finished goods". And there is no restriction on the same, there is only restriction on availment of rebate of duty paid on material used in the manufacture of export goods as also clarified in the above circular. 4.4 The Commissioner (Appeals) refers to the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Indorama Textiles Ltd. - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) while denying the rebate claim. This decision pertains to rebate claims filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and assessee has filed the rebate claims of both inputs used in the manufacture of the export goods as well as of the duty paid on export of these goods. At the outset, this is not the case of applicant here. They have not claimed the both type of rebates. Rather they have claimed drawback for input stage benefit and the rebate of duty paid on finished goods. 4.5 The applicant has also cited some case laws in favour of their submission. 5. Personal hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for inputs rebate will be made before Central Excise authorities. But admissibility of the instant rebate claim has to be determined taking into account the harmonious and combined reading of statutory provisions relating to rebate as well as drawback scheme. 9. Government notes that the term drawback has been defined in Rule 2(a) of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 (as amended) as under :- "(a) "drawback" in relation to any goods manufactured in India, and exported, means the rebate of duty chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used in the manufacture of such products". The said definition makes it clear that drawback is rebate of duty chargeable in inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. The Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 stipulates that where any goods are exported Central Government may by notification grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods. The provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 ibid are interpreted by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Indorama Textiles Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no double benefit available to manufacturer when only Customs portion of All Industry Rate of drawback is claimed. The harmonious and combined reading of statutory provisions of drawback and rebate scheme reveal that double benefit is not permissible as a general rule. The contention of the applicant that for violation of drawback notification, the drawback should be denied and rebate claim which is in accordance with provision of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, may be allowed, is not acceptable since he has already availed input stage rebate of duty (excise portion) in the form of duty drawback and extending another benefit of rebate of duty paid on exported goods will definitely amount to double benefit. Applicant's claim could have been accepted if he had repaid the duty drawback of Central Excise portion. In view of this position the rebate of duty paid on exported goods is not admissible in these cases. 11. Applicant has cited number of case laws in support of his submission. But none of the case law allow rebate of duty paid on exported goods when duty drawback of Central Excise portion is already availed. As such ratio of said judgment cannot be m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
