2011 (9) TMI 926 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Simultaneous Rebate and Duty Drawback Claim Rejected: Legal Prohibition on Double Benefits

IN RE : RSWM LTD.

The applicant's simultaneous claim for rebate and duty drawback was deemed impermissible, leading to the rejection of the rebate claim. The applicant was, ... - Issues:- Admissibility of rebate claim along with duty drawback claim- Rejection of rebate claim and allowing re-credit in Cenvat account- Legal implications of claiming double benefits- Interpretation of relevant case laws- Consideration of previous appellate orders- Government's decision on the revision applicationAdmissibility of Rebate Claim and Duty Drawback Claim:The applicant, engaged in manufacturing manmade yarn, filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for duty paid on goods exported through AREs-1, while simultaneously claiming duty drawback under Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. The original authority observed that the rebate claims were inadmissible due to the simultaneous duty drawback claim.Rejection of Rebate Claim and Re-Credit in Cenvat Account:Show cause notices were issued to the applicant, leading to the rejection of the rebate claim for Cenvat encashment. However, the applicant was allowed to restore the duty paid amount into their Cenvat credit account. The Department contended that re-credit tantamount to a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and should not be allowed without a specific application/request.Legal Implications of Claiming Double Benefits:The Government observed that the applicant attempted to avail double benefits by claiming rebate and duty drawback simultaneously, which is impermissible under the law. Since the goods were not exported under bond as required by Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the duty payment was deemed correct. The rejection of the rebate claim did not entitle the applicant to re-credit in the Cenvat account.Interpretation of Case Laws and Previous Appellate Orders:The applicant cited specific case laws to support their claims. The Government considered the previous appellate orders where re-credit in the Cenvat account was allowed, but the observation was deemed not a judgment and only a passing remark. The Government upheld the rejection of the rebate claim and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).Government's Decision on the Revision Application:After considering the oral and written submissions, the Government found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and upheld the decision. The revision application was rejected for lacking merit, concluding the legal proceedings.