2013 (2) TMI 57 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government Upholds SEZ Rebate Claims Decision

The Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondents, allowing rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise ... Circular No. 29/2006-Cus – Whether supply from DTA to SEZ are eligible for claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without Bill of Export – Assessee had supplied goods to SEZ unit - filed claims of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Not filed Bill of Export with the claims – Held that :- As per Para (5) of Board’s Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006, the supply from DTA to SEZ shall be eligible for claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to fulfilment of conditions laid thereon - As per sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006, DTA may supply the goods to SEZ, as in the case of exports, either under Bond or as duty paid goods under claim of rebate on the cover of ARE-1 - Meaning of export entitlement as given in sub-rule (3) of SEZ Rules, 2006 should be read with sub-rule (5) of the said Rule. In terms of sub-rule (5) of the said Rule, Bill of Export should be filed under the claim of drawback or DEPB. Though Bill of Export is required to be filed for making clearances to SEZ, yet the substantial benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied only for this lapse - Rebate on export of duty paid goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2008 is admissible. Further movement of goods manufactured in DTA units to SEZ shall be under bills of export and ARE-1 only in cases where exporter avails export entitlements. In this case there is no dispute about the fact that the respondents have not availed any export entitlement with respect of the goods exported by them to a unit in SEZ as involved in the present case - Since the assessee were not required to file a Shipping Bill, non- production of a copy of the Shipping Bill along with the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, certainly cannot be made a pretext to reject the legitimate claim – Rebate claim allowed – Against the revenue. Issues:1. Rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for supply to SEZ units.2. Requirement of filing Bill of Export with rebate claims.3. Rejection of rebate claims by the original authority.4. Appeals filed by respondents before Commissioner (Appeals).5. Grounds for revision applications filed by the applicant department.6. Interpretation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006.7. Compliance with procedural requirements for rebate claims.8. Decision of Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of respondents.9. Government's review and observations on the case.10. Admissibility of rebate claims for duty paid goods supplied to SEZ units.11. Consistency with previous judgments in similar cases.12. Upholding of the impugned orders by Government.13. Rejection of revision applications by Government.Analysis:1. The revision applications were filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I against the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I regarding the rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for supplying goods to SEZ units.2. The original authority rejected the rebate claims as the respondents failed to file the required Bill of Export along with their rebate claims, considering rebate as an export entitlement that necessitated the submission of Bills of Export.3. The respondents, aggrieved by the Orders-in-Original, appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in favor of the respondents, allowing the rebate claims.4. The revision applications were filed by the applicant department citing grounds related to the non-submission of Bills of Export with the rebate claims, as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Cus.5. The respondent's counter reply highlighted the procedural requirements outlined in Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Cus, emphasizing that failure to comply with procedural requirements should not lead to the denial of substantive rights.6. The Government reviewed the case records, noting that the supply of goods to SEZ units for rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was permissible subject to fulfilling laid conditions.7. Observing the provisions of Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006, the Government emphasized that the denial of rebate solely for the non-submission of Bill of Export was unwarranted, especially when the duty paid nature of goods supplied to SEZ units was undisputed.8. Upholding the decision of Commissioner (Appeals), the Government found no infirmity with the impugned orders and rejected the revision applications, citing consistency with previous judgments in similar cases.9. Ultimately, the Government upheld the impugned orders, affirming the admissibility of rebate claims for duty paid goods supplied to SEZ units and rejected the revision applications for lacking merit.