Manufacturer entitled to rebate on excise duty for re-exported goods despite non-Indian production

The court held that the petitioner, an international manufacturer, was eligible for a rebate on excise duty for re-exported LCD panels and parts, despite not being manufactured in India. The court emphasized that Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules did not require goods to be domestically manufactured for a rebate. The compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules and notification conditions supported the petitioner's claim. As the goods were classified as 'excisable goods' and had effectively paid duty, the court set aside the rejection and directed further action by the original authority.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of rebate claim on excise duty for re-exported LCD panels and parts.
2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
3. Applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Compliance with conditions under notification No. 19/2004 dated 6.9.2004.
5. Definition and applicability of 'excisable goods' under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claim on Excise Duty for Re-exported LCD Panels and Parts:
The petitioner, an international manufacturer of electronic goods, filed a petition against the rejection of a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,58,89,518/-. The claim was for excise duty paid on LCD panels and parts of colored televisions, which were imported and then re-exported without any manufacturing process within the country. The authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the goods were not manufactured in India and hence did not suffer any excise duty.

2. Interpretation of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
Rule 18 provides for a rebate of duty on goods exported, subject to conditions specified in the notification. The petitioner argued that Rule 18 does not specify that goods must be manufactured in India to be eligible for a rebate. The court noted that Rule 18 applies to 'any goods,' which includes both domestically manufactured and imported goods. The eligibility hinges on whether the Central Government has notified the rebate on such goods and if they qualify as 'excisable goods.'

3. Applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
Rule 3(5) mandates that when inputs or capital goods on which CENVAT credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory, an amount equal to the credit availed must be paid. The petitioner complied with this by reversing the CENVAT credit availed on the imported goods, which was equivalent to paying the countervailing duty. The court found that this reversal amounted to the payment of duty, making the goods eligible for a rebate under Rule 18.

4. Compliance with Conditions under Notification No. 19/2004 Dated 6.9.2004:
The notification outlines conditions for granting a rebate, including that goods must be exported directly from the factory after payment of duty. The petitioner argued, and the court agreed, that the goods were exported directly from the factory and that the reversal of CENVAT credit constituted payment of duty. The court found no requirement under the notification that the goods must be manufactured in India.

5. Definition and Applicability of 'Excisable Goods' under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1985:
Section 2(d) defines 'excisable goods' as those specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, subject to a duty of excise. The court noted that the LCD panels and parts were specified in these schedules, making them 'excisable goods.' Since the goods had suffered countervailing duty and the CENVAT credit was reversed, they were deemed to have paid excise duty, fulfilling the conditions for a rebate.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no stipulation under Rule 18 or the rebate notification that the goods must be manufactured in India to be eligible for a rebate. The goods, being 'excisable goods' and having paid duty through CENVAT credit reversal, were eligible for a rebate. The court set aside the order dated 2.1.2018 and remitted the matter to the original authority for consequential action in accordance with the law.

---