2016 (9) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturer of pan masala/gutkha. In respect of 27 consignments it had preferred rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules read with notification no. 32/2008-CE (N.T.) dated 28.08.2008, between 07.06.2011 and 1.07.2011. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Farrukhabad rejected the plea for rebate. The appellate authority held that since the articles were exported prior to coming into force of the Plastic Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2011 which was on 02.07.2011 the rebate claims could not have been rejected. The appellate commissioner also incorporated the CBEC circular of 30.08.2011 and held that rules were retrospective and consequently, the conditions for seeking rebate could not be said to have amended prior....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Appeals) while dealing with the above issue has erred in his findings while taking the plea that instruction dated 4-3-2011 by the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Lucknow Zone in the form of letter C. No. V(30) CCO/LKO/Tech/26/2011, dated 4-3-2011 may be one of the factors which may be considered while deciding the instant case. However, this letter cannot override the Rules and Sections pertaining to the issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) himself held in the concluding para of his Orderin-Appeal that "Section 3A of the Central Excise Act overrides the provisions of Rule 8 of Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008." Therefore, a letter dealing with some issue in a general form cannot be m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oper permissions and departmental clarifications on the subject matter.                 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 10. Applicant department has contended that in view of Condition 3(g) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods, export of which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force cannot be granted since Gutkha manufactured by respondent was exported in plastic sachets/material. In this regard Government notes that the said goods were exported by the respondent after issuance of clarification by Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Zone vide letter C. No. V(30) CCO/LKO/Tech/26/2011, dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d up from the applicant department who vide letter F. No. IV-853/R/O/2011, dated 23-11-2012 stated that another exporter M/s. Pan Parag India Ltd., Kanpur had exported Pan Masala/Gutkha in sachets of plastic upto August, 2011 and rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods was allowed upto that period. 10.3 Government notes that Trade Notice No. 20/2011, dated 20-9-2011 issued on the basis--of C.B.E. & C. Circular F. No. 528/69/2011-STO(TI), dated 30-8-2011 clarifying distinction between sachets and carry bags, cannot have retrospective effect. The clarification issued by Chief Commissioner, Lucknow was binding on the Central Excise officers and as such the rebate allowed for duty paid on exported goods at the relevant time cannot now at....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....controverted. The clearance of the goods occurred in 27 consignments between 07.06.2011 and 01.07.2011. Concededly, notification prohibiting manufacture of plastic packaging for the articles in question i.e. Pan Masala and Gutkha came into force on 02.07.2011. Equally, it is not in dispute that such packaged goods qualify for duty rebate in terms of extant notifications and other provisions governing it - notably the notification dated 20.08.2008 and Rule 14 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. The Central Government itself in almost identical facts and powers seems to have (see in P.R.Chemicals's case (supra) ) taken the view that (a) notifications is not retrospective and (b) tha....