2017 (10) TMI 1430 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Commissioner's challenge to rebate claim for Electrosteel Steels Ltd. rejected; compliance with rules upheld.

IN RE : ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LTD.

The revision application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi, challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in granting a ... Rebate of duty - export of goods - DI pipes - rejection of rebate on the ground of Jurisdiction - rebate rejected on the ground that the said rebate claim falls under the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner, Division KDH-I Khardah, West Bengal wherefrom the goods were exported and not falling in the jurisdiction of Bokaro Division where the respondent filed the rebate claim - Held that:- It cannot be overlooked that respondent was compelled to send the semi-finished DI pipes to the Khardah unit for some minor job work due to not receiving any response from Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi under Rule 16B of C. Ex Rules for sending the goods for job work to Khardah unit. Moreover, the duty of Excise has been paid by the respondent in Bokaro Division only and rebate of duty is also claimed against the duty paid in the Bokaro Division only. No duty is paid by the unit at Khardah and, therefore, respondent’s rebate claim does not have any nexus with the Central Excise Division covering Khardah unit. The Government does not find any fault in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and no merit is found in Revision application filed by the applicant - rebate cannot be rejected on this ground - revision application dismissed. Issues:1. Jurisdictional authority for rebate claim on exported goods.2. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and Notification for rebate claim.3. Export of goods and payment of duty in respect of exported goods.Analysis:1. The revision application was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the rebate of duty to the respondent, M/s. Electrosteel Steels Ltd. The respondent had applied for permission under Rule 16B of Central Excise Rules, 2002, to convert semi-finished DI pipes into finished pipes from another unit in West Bengal. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in Ranchi rejected the rebate claim, stating that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in Khardah, West Bengal, where the goods were exported from. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent, leading to the revision application by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi, on the grounds that the goods were not exported directly from the premises of the respondent in Bokaro, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in granting the rebate.2. The revision application highlighted that the goods were indeed exported from Khardah, West Bengal, not falling under the jurisdiction of Bokaro Division where the rebate claim was filed. However, it was noted that the respondent was compelled to send the semi-finished DI pipes to Khardah for minor job work due to not receiving any response from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi. The duty of Excise was paid by the respondent in Bokaro Division, and the rebate claim was also against the duty paid in Bokaro Division. No duty was paid at the Khardah unit, indicating that the rebate claim did not have any connection with the Central Excise Division covering Khardah unit. The Government found that any failure on the part of the respondent was technical in nature and not substantive. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered all relevant facts, including compliance with Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E., and allowed the appeal of the respondent based on substantial compliance.3. The Government rejected the revision application, stating that there was no fault in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as the respondent had substantially complied with the rules and notifications regarding the rebate claim. Despite the technical nature of the issue, the export of goods and payment of duty in respect of the exported goods were not in dispute. Therefore, the revision application was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the rebate claim to the respondent, M/s. Electrosteel Steels Ltd.