Excise rebate limited to duty on exported finished goods; duty on raw materials is not rebateable absent express coverage.

Under the relevant central excise rebate scheme, rebate was confined to the duty actually paid on exported finished goods and had to be proved from Central Excise records to the Collector's satisfaction. The scheme did not create any presumption that duty allegedly paid on billets used as raw material was deemed to have been paid on the exported products, so rebate on such raw material duty was not admissible. A separate challenge to the later adjustment of rebate already sanctioned was rejected because it was raised only in revision and was unsupported by specific facts or material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rebate of central excise duty could be granted on the duty alleged to have been paid on billets used as raw material, in addition to the duty actually paid on the exported finished goods. (ii) Whether the claim that the rebate already sanctioned was illegally adjusted after six months could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether rebate of central excise duty could be granted on the duty alleged to have been paid on billets used as raw material, in addition to the duty actually paid on the exported finished goods.

Analysis: The rebate scheme under Notification No. 197/62-C.E. required export of the goods after payment of duty in cash and further required the amount of duty paid on the goods exported, and the date of payment, to be established from Central Excise records to the satisfaction of the Collector. The later notifications relied upon did not create any legal presumption that duty of Rs. 330 per metric tonne paid, or claimed to have been paid, on billets was deemed to have been paid on the exported products. The scheme permitted rebate only of the duty actually paid on the finished goods cleared for export, not of duty on raw materials used in their manufacture.

Conclusion: The claim for rebate on the alleged duty paid on billets was not admissible and the Revenue's position was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim that the rebate already sanctioned was illegally adjusted after six months could be sustained.

Analysis: The challenge was raised only in revision and was unsupported by specific facts or material showing the alleged illegality of the adjustments. In the absence of substantiation, no interference was warranted on this ground.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adjustments was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The rebate was confined to the duty actually paid on the exported finished products, and the connected challenge to the later adjustments failed; all appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the relevant rebate notification, excise rebate is available only on the duty actually paid on the exported finished goods and can be claimed only when payment is established from Central Excise records to the satisfaction of the Collector; duty on raw materials is not rebateable unless expressly covered by the scheme.

---