2017 (11) TMI 1520 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses writ petitions for rebate claims non-compliance

M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and 2 Ors. - 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 133 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Rejection of rebate claims under specified notifications.2. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and Notifications.3. Identifiability and co-relation of exported goods.4. Permission under Rule 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.5. Alleged misrepresentation and misuse of permissions.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Rebate Claims under Specified Notifications:The petitioner challenged the orders passed under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which rejected their claims for rebate under specific notifications granting export-related benefits. The Assistant Commissioner rejected 76 rebate claims amounting to Rs. 25,72,908/- on the grounds that the goods were not directly cleared from the place of manufacture as required by Notification 41 and Notification 19. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Joint Secretary, Government of India, upheld this rejection, emphasizing the necessity for goods to be exported directly from the factory of manufacture.2. Compliance with Central Excise Rules and Notifications:The petitioner argued that they had been consistently getting their goods manufactured through Contract Manufacturing Units (CMUs) and exporting them after receiving appropriate permissions. They contended that the goods received at BFPL were duty-paid and were cleared for export after payment of excise duty, thus eligible for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the authorities maintained that the goods must be exported directly from the factory of manufacture, and the petitioner had not followed the stipulated procedures.3. Identifiability and Co-relation of Exported Goods:The petitioner claimed that the exported goods were clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared from the factory. They provided detailed documentation, including invoices, shipping bills, and Form ARE-1s, to demonstrate the co-relation of the goods. However, the authorities concluded that it was not possible to co-relate the exported goods with the goods cleared from the factory, as the goods were not exported directly from the place of manufacture.4. Permission under Rule 16(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:The petitioner asserted that BFPL had obtained permission from the Commissioner of Central Excise under Rule 16(3) to receive duty-paid goods for export. However, the authorities found that no such permission had been granted. The letter dated 26th May 2004 from the Commissioner explicitly directed BFPL to follow the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2), and since no difficulties in following these rules were reported, the question of seeking permission under Rule 16(3) did not arise. The court concluded that there was no permission given for bringing goods to the factory of BFPL for stuffing them into containers.5. Alleged Misrepresentation and Misuse of Permissions:The petitioner was accused of misrepresenting the facts and misusing permissions. The authorities noted that the letter from the Commissioner was not a permission under Rule 16(3), and the goods were not exported directly from the place of manufacture. The court found that the petitioner had attempted to mislead the authorities and the court by claiming that permission had been granted when it had not.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the orders of the authorities rejecting the rebate claims. The court found that the petitioner had not complied with the necessary conditions for claiming the rebate, and there was no permission granted for the export of goods from BFPL. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner for each of the matters.