Rebate exclusion for Nepal and Bhutan upheld where exporter used a separate Nepal export regime and could not claim under other notifications.

Rebate notifications issued under delegated rule-making power validly excluded exports to Nepal and Bhutan as a matter of policy, and that exclusion was not discriminatory or violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A. The exporter had already chosen the separate Nepal-specific export route after payment of duty, so a rebate claim under the excluded notifications was misconceived and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether notifications excluding exports to Nepal and Bhutan from the rebate scheme under the Central Excise Rules were unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, and whether the exporter could claim rebate after choosing to export under the separate Nepal-specific notification.

Analysis: The rebate notifications were issued under Rule 12(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as matters of policy. Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.) granted rebate for exports to destinations other than Nepal and Bhutan, while Notification No. 42/94-C.E. (N.T.) similarly excluded those destinations for rebate on materials used in export goods. The exporter had availed the route under Notification No. 50/94-C.E. (N.T.) for exports to Nepal after payment of duty, and the rebate claim under the excluded notifications was therefore misconceived. The exclusion of Nepal and Bhutan from the rebate scheme was held to be within governmental competence and not discriminatory, nor violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 300A of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notifications failed, and the rebate claim was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rebate notification validly excludes specified export destinations as a matter of policy under the delegated rule-making power, and the exporter has chosen a separate export regime applicable to that destination, the exclusion is not unconstitutional and no rebate can be claimed under the excluded notifications.

---