2017 (9) TMI 701 - HC - Central Excise

CESTAT's Jurisdiction Upheld for Duty Drawback Appeals, Clarifies Distinction Between Rebate and Drawback

The Commissioner of Central Excise-Thane Versus M/s. K.K. Chempro (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The court upheld the jurisdiction of CESTAT in entertaining appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders on duty drawback, distinguishing between ... Jurisdiction - whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), wherein the issue of “Duty Drawback” had been determined by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)? - Held that: - under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, “Rebate of Duty” has been specifically provided which reads that Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitation, if any, and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. Since “Rebate of duty” is separately provided for it cannot be equated with “drawback” under Rule 2 of the said Rules - there is no bar in entertaining an Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), determining the duty drawback - CESTAT has properly exercised jurisdiction - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) | Interpretation of the term 'drawback' under Rule 2 | Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty drawback | Distinction between 'rebate of duty' and 'drawback' | Legal implications of Rule 18 on rebate of duty | Determination of jurisdiction of CESTAT in the context of duty drawback cases.Analysis:The judgment involves a challenge to the jurisdiction of CESTAT in entertaining an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the determination of duty drawback. The appellant contested the jurisdiction of CESTAT based on the definition of 'drawback' under Rule 2, equating it with a 'rebate of duty.' The appellant argued that as per the first proviso to Section 35 B (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, no appeal shall lie concerning a rebate of duty on goods exported. The appellant emphasized that the impugned order of CESTAT was without jurisdiction as it considered an appeal related to the rate of drawback determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).In response, the respondent supported the impugned judgment, asserting that an appeal to CESTAT is permissible from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning duty drawback. The court delved into the legal framework, specifically Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which addresses the 'Rebate of Duty.' The court noted that since 'Rebate of duty' is distinctly provided for under Rule 18, it cannot be equated with 'drawback' as defined under Rule 2. The court opined that there is no prohibition on entertaining an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order determining duty drawback, thus upholding the jurisdiction of CESTAT in such matters.Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that CESTAT had appropriately exercised jurisdiction in the case. The judgment clarifies the distinction between 'rebate of duty' and 'drawback,' highlighting the legal basis for appealing Commissioner (Appeals) decisions on duty drawback issues. The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of relevant rules and regulations governing duty drawback cases, ensuring consistency in legal proceedings related to customs, excise, and service tax matters.