Duty-paid export procedure for Nepal bars later refund claim under Section 11B after the exporter chose that route.

An exporter to Nepal who consciously chose the duty-paid export procedure under Notification No. 20/2004-C.E. (N.T.) could not later switch to the bond-based procedure under Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and claim refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the cited Supreme Court ruling did not create a third route for refund after export had been completed under the selected procedure. It also found no provision permitting normal rebate of duty paid on such exports to Nepal, particularly where the shipping bills and assessments had not been challenged. Refund was therefore unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was available to an exporter to Nepal after opting to export under Notification No. 20/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 instead of availing the procedure under Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26.06.2001.

Analysis: Two alternative procedures existed for export of goods to Nepal: one on payment of duty under Notification No. 20/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and the other under bond without payment of duty under Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The exporter had consciously chosen the duty-paid route at the time of export. The claimed refund was sought later by attempting to switch to the alternative notification. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the appellant did not support a third option of refund after the export had already been completed under the chosen procedure. It further held that no provision permitted normal rebate of duty paid on such exports to Nepal under Section 11B, and the shipping bills and assessments had not been challenged.

Conclusion: Refund under Section 11B was not available, and the exporter could not shift to the alternative notification after having opted for the duty-paid export procedure.

---