Rebate on duty-paid exports cannot be denied on the basis of a notification already struck down as ultra vires.

Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 governs rebate on duty-paid exports, while Rule 19 applies separately to exports without payment of duty. Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.) had already been held inconsistent with those rules and beyond the Board's power, so it could not be used to deny rebate claims. The attempt to limit the earlier jurisdictional High Court ruling to a different period failed because the notification had been struck down in full. A subordinate adjudicating authority cannot take a view contrary to binding High Court precedent.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate claims on exported goods could be denied by relying on Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and whether the adjudicating authority could distinguish the jurisdictional High Court's earlier decision striking down that notification.

Analysis: Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 governs rebate on duty-paid exports, while Rule 19 operates in a separate field for export without payment of duty. The earlier judgment had already held Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.) to be bad in law as it was inconsistent with Rules 18 and 19 and beyond the power of the Board. That notification was therefore not available to defeat rebate claims. The attempt to confine the earlier ruling to a different period was rejected because the notification itself had been set aside in full. An adjudicating authority could not take a view contrary to the binding decision of the jurisdictional High Court.

Conclusion: The rebate claims could not be denied on the basis of Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.), and the impugned orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority cannot refuse rebate by relying on a notification already struck down as ultra vires by the jurisdictional High Court, and such a notification cannot override the scheme of the governing rules.

---