BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions arise out of a common background. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2835/2021 is treated as a lead case. Facts on record from the said case may be seen. The petitioner is a limited company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of automobile tyres and tubes falling under Chapter 40 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For the purpose of manufacturing tyres the petitioner would utilise indigenous as well as imported raw materials. In order to avail the benefits of duty free imports the petitioner had obtained advance authorisations and imported goods without payment of duty in terms of notification dtd. 11/9/2009. For certain locally procured inputs the petitioner would apply and obtain invalidation letters from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade by getting the relevant advance authorisation cancelled for the quantity of goods invalidated.

(3.) The petitioner made a rebate claim under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short 'the rules of 2002') for a sum of Rs.97.74 lacs (rounded off) before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show-cause notice on 9/2/2015 why such rebate claim should not be rejected. In the show-cause notice it was mentioned that upon examination of claim it appears that petitioner had exported goods and though no valid duty was payable on such exported goods the petitioner paid the duty from inadmissible CENVAT credit availed on the basis of inputs supplied against invalidation letters on payment of duty which was lying in the CENVAT account of assessee. The assessee had thus paid duty deliberately to claim the rebate of the same.