TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 31-7-2001 and also claimed the rebate of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the same duty of exported goods which appears to be double benefit, as the refund granted by way of self credit makes the goods exempted and no rebate can be allowed on exempted goods which makes the rebate claim ineligible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 The above observations were culminated into issuance of show cause notice which was adjudicated by the lower authority vide his impugned order. The lower authority sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 2,25,35,758/- and allowed to take credit of Rs. 13,73,922/- in the PLA account of the respondent. 2.2 During the course of review of the impugned order, the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) found that the impugned order is not correct, proper and legal on the grounds that the lower authority erred in sanctioning the rebate claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); that the rebate of Central Excise duty paid on the goods exported out of India, is granted in terms of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order-in-original and allowed the appeal of department in respect of rebate claim pertaining to goods exported after 17-9-2007. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the appeal of the respondent and reversing the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to the extent of allowing rebate claim for goods exported on or after 17-9-2007. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that rebate shall not be admissible under the said Notification in case goods were exported after 17-9-2007 after relying upon Notification No. 37/2009 (supra). The applicants say and submit that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is misconceived in law and therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 3.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that while clearing the goods from their factory under ARE-1 and invoices for exports, conditions stipulated at the relevant time und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 101 (Cal.) 3.5 The applicants say and submit that the said notification was amended vide Notification No. 37/2007 dated 17-9-2007. The amended Notification does not have retrospective effect as laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and in the applicants' own case reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 551, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). The applicants say and submit that the amended Notification shall not apply to rebate claim made in respect of goods cleared from factory prior to 17-9-2007. 3.6 The applicants say and submit that Section 38A of the Central Excise Act provides that whenever any Notification is amended, then such amendment shall not affect any right or privilege acquired or accrued under Notification so amended unless different intention appears. In other words, effect of the amended Notification is to be applied prospectively and not retrospectively. 3.7 The applicants say and submit that in terms of settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Notifications like statute must be construed having regard to the purpose and object they s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a ACCE, Gandhidham Rajkot Central Excise attended hearing on behalf of respondent department who prayed to uphold the impugned order-in-appeal. 5. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 6. On perusal of records, Government observes that initially the original authority sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 2,25,35,758/- and allowed re-credit of Rs. 13,73,922/- in the PLA account of the applicant. Commissioner Central Excise reviewed the impugned order and therefore department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the department appeal setting aside the impugned order-in-original so far it related to rebate claim of duty paid on goods exported after 17-9-2007. Now the applicant has filed revision application on the grounds stated in para 3 above. 7. Applicant has mainly pleaded that goods were cleared for export from the factory under Central Excise invoices dated 24-8-2007 to 31-8-2007 along with ARE-I 171 to 178 all dated 24-8-2007 to 31-8-2007 by complying all the conditions and provisions of the notification prevalent at that time, and right to rebate vested i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany Affairs (Department of Revenue) No. 56/2002-Central Excise, dated 14th November, 2002 [G.S.R. 764(E), dated 14th November, 2002] or No. 57/2002-Central Excise, dated 14th November, 2002 [G.S.R. 765(E), dated 14th November, 2002] or notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 56/2003-Central Excise, dated 25th June, 2003 [G.S.R. 513(E), dated 25th June, 2003] or 71/2003-Central Excise, dated the 9th September, 2003 [G.S.R. 717(E), dated the 9th September, 2003] or No. 20/2007-Central Excise, dated the 25th April, 2007 [G.S.R. 307(E), dated the 25th April, 2007], the rebate shall not be admissible under this notification." The condition 2(h) envisaged that in case of export of goods which are manufactured by manufacturer availing specified notifications granting area based exemption, the rebate shall not be admissible under this notification. In the instant case the manufacturer exporter applicant has exported the goods manufactured by availing such Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001. 9. Government notes that the rebate become admissible when duty paid goods are exported and condition or limitation of said not....