2009 (7) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns duty refund denial, emphasizing the importance of supporting exports

CHAMUNDA PHARMA MACHINERY PVT. LTD. Versus CCE., AHMEDABAD-I

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the refund of duty on goods exported to Nepal after a delay caused by political unrest. Despite ... Refund of duty paid – Delay in export of goods to Nepal - In terms of Notification No. 45/01-C.E. (N.T.), if the goods are not exported within a period of six months from the date of clearance, the assessee would deposit the duty involved therein. As such, at the insistence of their range officer, the appellant deposited the duty and interest - in view the fact that the goods could not be earlier exported on account of unrest and strikes in Nepal, I am of the view that denial of refund of duty paid by the appellant on the admittedly exported goods, is not in consonance with the export scheme - Admittedly, the goods could not be exported earlier on account of unrest in Nepal and subsequent export not having been in dispute, the appellants are entitled to refund of duty deposited by them. Issues:1. Refund of duty on goods exported to Nepal after a delay.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 45/01-C.E. (N.T.) regarding the time limit for export.3. Application of export promotion schemes and incentives.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund of duty on goods exported to Nepal after a delayThe appellants, engaged in manufacturing pharmaceutical machines, cleared goods for export to Nepal but faced delays due to political unrest. They deposited duty and interest as per Notification No. 45/01-C.E. (N.T.) after failing to export within six months. Subsequently, they exported the goods, but their refund claim was denied based on the time limit in the notification. The appellant argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, and as the goods were exported, they should be entitled to a refund. The Tribunal noted that the substantive fact of export was not in doubt and held that denying the refund would go against the purpose of export promotion schemes.Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 45/01-C.E. (N.T.) regarding the time limit for exportThe Tribunal considered the notification as a procedural measure to ensure actual export within six months. The appellant's extension request for exporting to Nepal was granted, and the export eventually took place. The Tribunal emphasized that technical lapses should not defeat the purpose of export promotion schemes. Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that duty rebate had been granted in cases of delayed export where the substantive fact of export was established. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the duty refund was not aligned with the legislative intent to boost exports.Issue 3: Application of export promotion schemes and incentivesIn analyzing the case, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions emphasizing the importance of export promotion schemes in encouraging exports and earning foreign exchange. The Tribunal observed that a liberal interpretation should be given in cases of technical lapses to uphold the objective of such schemes. By applying this principle to the present case, considering the circumstances of unrest in Nepal causing the export delay, the Tribunal ruled in favor of granting the duty refund to the appellant, aligning with the intention to support and promote exports.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the denial of the refund and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant in a judgment pronounced on 21-7-2009.