Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Spentex Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner,Customs &Central; ... on 2 August, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M/s. Spentex Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Customs
W. P. No.4474 of 2007
Writ Petition No.4474 of 2007
Indore, Dated:- 02/08/2018
Shri Alok Barthwal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned Counsel for the
respondent.
Heard.
2. After decision of the Apex Court in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 686 (S.C.), an I.A. No.2080 of 2018 has been filed by the assessee on the ground that the issue in regard to grant of rebate of duty paid on export of finished goods as well as inputs (raw materials) used in manufacturing of such exported finished goods under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules made thereunder has been finally decided by the Apex Court and as per para 27 of the judgment of Apex Court, the exporters/appellants therein are entitled to both the rebates under Rule 18 and not one kind of rebate. The judgment of the Bombay High Court impugned therein was set aside and appeals filed by the assessees have been allowed.
3. Thereafter Review Petition (C) No.233 of 2016 in Civil Appeal No.1978 of 2007 filed by the revenue has been dismissed on 9th March, 2016.
4. To appreciate the controversy involved in the writ 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M/s. Spentex Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Customs W. P. No.4474 of 2007 petition, we reproduce paras 2 and 5 of the Central Government order passed in Revision on 13.4.2005:-
"2. The issue involved in these Revision Application is that M/s. Indo Rama Textiles Ltd. (the respondents) were engaged in the manufacture of various qualities of yarn falling under Chapter 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufactured finished goods out of inputs brought in on payment of duty. They exported the goods so manufactured on payment of duty. Subsequently, they claimed rebate of Central Excise duty paid by them in respect of material used in the manufacture of finished goods exported under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also claimed rebate of Central Excise duty paid on clearance of goods exported. The adjudicating authority has sanctioned the rebate on duty paid at the input stage and disallowed the rebate of duty paid on goods exported on the ground that word 'or' used in Rule 18 shows that only one of the rebates can be sanctioned i.e. rebate of duty paid on export goods or rebate of duty paid on inputs for manufacture of final products. Separate appeals were filed to Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned orders -in Appeal, allowed the appeals.
5. Govt. has considered the submissions made. In this regard, Govt. observes that identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in DBC in Writ Petition No.4435/2006 and the Hon'ble Court in the judgment dated 18.7.2006 held that only one type of rebate i.e. rebate of duty paid on inputs or Central Excise duty on export goods is admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Notification No.41/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 and for this limited purpose, the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Revisionary Authority to verify factual position and pass orders. In compliance, Govt. has already passed the orders vide Revisionary Order No.267/07 dated 7.5.2007 and a copy thereof is annexed as annexure "A" to this order. It is also observed that in the case of M/s Indo Rama Textiles Ltd., Nagpur, similar issue also came up in Writ Petition No.683/2006 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 20.4.2006 has also held that only one rebate either of input stage or final product is admissible under the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002."
3HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M/s. Spentex Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner Central Excise & Customs W. P. No.4474 of 2007
5. From the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the Central Government in revision followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court and held that the assessee is entitled for only one rebate. Thereafter, the civil appeals filed by the assessees therein against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, have been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition in terms of para 27 of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Spentex Industries Ltd. (supra) and direct the revenue to examine the matter in the light of the aforesaid judgment and in case, if it is found that the case of the assessee is covered by the aforesaid judgment, appropriate action be taken therein, in accordance with law.
(P. K. Jaiswal) (S. K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
pp/
Digitally signed by Pankaj
Pandey
Date: 2018.08.02 14:25:51 +05'30'