Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Tools (Export) vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 November, 2016
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2004/2013
PETITIONER :
National Tools (Export) F-53, Marudhar Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Basni, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) at present 71,
Opp. I.O.C. Depot, Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan)
Versus
RESPONDENTS :
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Department
of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, C-1-A,
Panchwati Colony, Ratanada, Jodhpur
3. The Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-II, Union
of India near Statute Circle, 'C' Scheme, Jaipur
4. The Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeal), Jaipur-
II, near Statute Circle, 'C' Scheme, Jaipur
5. The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India, 14, HUDCO,
Vishala Building, 'B' Wing, 6th Floor, Bhikaji Cama
Place, New Delhi
[2]
Date of Order : 02.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J.
HON'BLE MR. DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J.
Mr. Sanjeev Johari ]
Mr. Jitendra Maheshwari ] for the petitioner
Mr. Vipul Singhvi for the respondents
ORDER
-------
BY THE COURT :
The petitioner National Tools (Export), Jodhpur, a partnership firm, as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, submitted rebate claims on duty paid on materials used in manufacturing of export goods. The rebate as claimed for was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner under an order dated 31.03.2009. The Assistant Commissioner while sanctioning rebate arrived at the conclusion that the assessee declared all the raw materials including the R- bars which were used to manufacture furnished exported goods.
An appeal preferred as per the provisions of Section 35-E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 also came to be rejected under the order dated 29.09.2010. The appellate authority while rejecting the appeal held as under :-
[3]
"6.3 I find that the respondent filed declaration, under above said Notification, on 17.08.2005 and 23.01.2007 for availing benefit of rebate of central excise duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of export goods and permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division, Jodhpur vide letter dated 26.08.2005 and 29.06.2007. I observe that in declaration dated 17.8.2005 ingots/Billet has been declared as input and in declaration dated 23.01.2007 "Iron raw material" has been declared as input and in the charts (enclosed with both the declarations) respondent mentioned details of raw materials as square, round bar, rectangular bar and ingots alongwith Chapter Sub heading No. and rate of duty and also mentioned manufacturing process.
6.4 Notification No.21/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 stipulates that declaration should contain manufacturing/processing formula and tariff classification, rate of duty paid or payable on the materials so used. Thus, as per department's view, if the chart, consisting manufacturing process and list of raw materials along with tariff classification and rate of duty, was not considered as the part of approved declarations then how Deputy Commissioner approved these [4] declarations without complete information. Which clearly show that the charts were part of approved declarations."
A revision petition thereafter was preferred by the Commissioner, Central Excise, which came to be decided under the order dated 16.11.2011. The revisional authority while disposing of the revision petition held that input rebate claim of duty paid on disputed non-declared input materials is admissible subject to the condition that consumption of notified materials is as per SION norms of Export and Import Policy and the said duty paid material are used in manufacture of exported goods. The revisional authority modified the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, accordingly. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant petition for writ is preferred.
The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the issue relating to rebate on duty paid is required to be examined as per Rule 18 of the Rules and no condition beyond the conditions prescribed therein could have been applied by the respondents.
Per contra, as per the respondents, the [5] revisional authority after perusing the additional submissions made by the Commissioner, Central Excise rightly arrived at the conclusion that SION norms are applicable in the instant matter. It is asserted that while making a final export material, there may be certain wastage and that would have been detailed by the petitioner as per SION norms. It is required to be made only for the reason that waste material is not subject to any rebate as per Rule 18.
Heard learned counsel.
Precisely, the question requires adjudication in the instant matter is whether the respondents are right in imposing any condition while granting rebate on duty beyond the conditions prescribed under rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. The Rule 18 aforesaid provides thatwhere any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the notification. A notification in this regard was issued by the authority competent on 06.09.2004. The petitioner fulfilled all the conditions [6] prescribed in the notification aforesaid. The Rule 18 nowhere mentions about adhering the SION norms and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the revisional authority erred while holding that the petitioner should have also maintained and adhered the procedure given under the SION norms. In view of it, the order passed by the revisional authority is erroneous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the revisional authority dated 16.11.2011 is declared bad and set aside to the extent it modifies the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 31.03.2009 and the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) dated 29.09.2010 for application of SION norms of Export and Import Policy and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner 31.03.2009 stands restored. (DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Pramod