2018 (3) TMI 1724 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government affirms duty rebate for exported Gutkha products, clarifying eligibility criteria under Notification No. 32/2008-C.E.

IN RE : TIRUPATI BALAJI INDUSTRIES CO.

The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision allowing the respondent's rebate claim for duty paid on exported Gutkha products. The case ... Rebate claim - export of goods - Gutkha - denial of rebate on the ground that the respondent had not paid the Central Excise duty for the full month of July, 2012 and had paid duty for the 5 days only - Held that:- The issue in the present case is regarding rebate of duty against the export of goods and not a case of abatement of duty claimed by the respondent for which duty for the whole month is required to be paid in advance - Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 28-8-2008 does not stipulate any condition that the duty payment for the entire month is a pre-condition for claiming rebate of duty on exported goods and the rebate of duty has been claimed by the respondent in respect of central excise duty only paid on the exported goods. As per Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 32/2008, the main conditions for claiming rebate of duty are that the duty paid goods have been exported within stipulated time and the claim has been lodged within one year from the export of the goods. The compliance of these conditions is not in dispute in the present case and there is no allegation from the applicant that other conditions mentioned at S. No. (ii) to (ix) have not been satisfied in this case - rebate should not be denied - revision application dismissed. Issues:1. Admissibility of rebate of duty on exported goods.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.).3. Compliance with Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for claiming rebate of duty.Analysis:1. The case revolved around the admissibility of a rebate of duty claimed by a respondent who exported Gutkha products after paying duties. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the rebate claim, stating that the respondent had not paid the Central Excise duty for the full month of July 2012. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the issue was about the rebate of duty on exported goods, not the abatement of duty. The Commissioner held that the duty payment for the entire month was not a pre-condition for claiming the rebate, as per Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.). The Government noted that the main conditions for claiming rebate were the timely export of duty-paid goods and lodging the claim within one year, both of which were met in this case. The Government found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as the legal provisions were satisfied.2. The Government highlighted that the Notification No. 32/2008-C.E. (N.T.) did not mandate the payment of duty for the entire month as a prerequisite for claiming a rebate of duty on exported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly observed that the rebate claimed by the respondent was based on the central excise duty paid on the exported goods, and not on the compounded Central Excise duty for the entire month of July 2012. The Government emphasized that the compliance with Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and the conditions specified in the notification were crucial for claiming the rebate, all of which were fulfilled in this case.3. The Government rejected the revision application, concluding that the Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately analyzed the admissibility of the rebate of duty in light of the legal provisions and the specific conditions for claiming such rebates. The Government's decision was based on the fact that the rebate was rightfully claimed by the respondent for the duty paid on the exported goods, meeting all necessary requirements outlined in the relevant rules and notifications.