SANDHAR AUTOMOTIVES Vs. JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNEMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for setting aside of an order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order dated 31.05.2013 is hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order'. By the impugned order, the respondent has upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 30.03.2011 and held that the petitioner was not entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

(2.) THE principal controversy in the present matter is whether, in the given circumstances where the petitioner had not deposited the excise duty prior to the export of goods, the petitioner would be entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the goods exported by it.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner has paid the excise duty on the automotive parts that were exported, albeit after the goods were so exported. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rule which provides for the manner of paying duty. He specifically referred to sub -rule 3 which provides for payment of interest in the event an assessee fails to pay the duty by the due date. The petitioner's case that the excise duty had been paid in the manner as prescribed. And, since there was some delay in payment of duty, the petitioner had also paid interest on the same. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefit of rebate on duty under Rule 18, which is available where duty paid goods are exported. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is relevant and is quoted below: -