Exporter entitled to rebate under Rule 18 despite paying voluntary duty on exempted goods for export

Gujarat HC allowed petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Petitioner manufactured goods exempted under Notification 29/2004-CE but paid concessional duty under Notification 59/2008-CE for exports, then claimed rebate. Revenue rejected claim arguing duty payment was voluntary. HC held that when assessee pays duty on exported goods despite exemption, rebate cannot be denied. Court relied on Arvind Limited precedent affirmed by SC, which established that exporters paying duty on fully exempted products remain entitled to export rebate. HC directed respondents to grant rebate with applicable interest within 12 weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Simultaneous availing of two exemption notifications for domestic and export clearance.
3. Calculation of excise duty based on CIF versus FOB value.
4. Entitlement to cash refund under the GST regime.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Rebate Claims under Rule 18:

The primary issue in these petitions revolves around the rejection of rebate claims filed by the petitioners under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners, manufacturers and exporters of pharmaceutical products, claimed rebates for excise duty paid on exported goods. The Assistant Commissioner partially rejected these claims, granting cash rebates only to the extent of 5% excise duty and re-crediting the remaining amount, arguing that the petitioner paid excess duty by opting for a higher rate of 10% for exports compared to 5% for domestic sales. The petitioners contested this decision, arguing that they were entitled to choose the more beneficial notification for export purposes.

2. Simultaneous Availing of Two Exemption Notifications:

The petitioners availed two separate exemption notifications: one for domestic clearance at a 5% duty rate and another for exports at a 10% duty rate. The authorities rejected this approach, stating that simultaneous availing of two notifications without maintaining separate accounts of inputs is impermissible. However, the petitioners relied on the precedent set by the case of Arvind Ltd vs. Union of India, where it was held that an assessee could choose the more beneficial notification for exports. The court reaffirmed this principle, allowing the petitioners to avail different exemptions for domestic and export clearances.

3. Calculation of Excise Duty Based on CIF versus FOB Value:

The Assistant Commissioner reduced the rebate claims by recalculating the excise duty based on the FOB value, instead of the CIF value, arguing that freight and insurance beyond the port of export should not be included in the transaction value. The petitioners argued that the excise duty was correctly paid on the CIF value, as per the certified ARE-I value. The court noted that the rebate should be granted on the excise duty paid, as the assessment for such goods was already finalized, and the authorities cannot dispute the assessable value at the rebate stage.

4. Entitlement to Cash Refund under the GST Regime:

With the introduction of the GST regime, the petitioners argued for a cash refund of the rebate claims, as the CENVAT credit account no longer exists. The court, referencing the case of Thermax Limited, held that under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, any amount accruing to the assessee should be paid in cash. The court directed the authorities to refund the rebate amount in cash, with interest, instead of re-crediting it to a non-existent CENVAT account.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petitions, quashing the impugned orders and directing the respondents to grant the claimed rebates in cash, with applicable interest, within 12 weeks. The court emphasized the petitioners' right to choose the most beneficial notification for exports and upheld the principle that rebate claims should be settled in cash under the GST regime, aligning with the legal precedents and statutory provisions.

---