Page 229 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IN RE : KOTSONS PVT. LTD. 563

contended that CESTAT has granted benefit in the case of M/s. Indo Rama Syn-
thetics (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs [2013 (296) E.L.T. 411
(Tri. - Mumbai)] in respect of Notification No. 94/2004-Customs, dated 10-9-
2004. No one appeared for the respondent and no request for adjournment has
been received from them. Therefore the matter is being taken up for disposal on
the basis of facts on record.
4. On examination of the relevant case records, the Order-in-Original,
Commissioner (Appeals)’s order and the Revision application it is evident that
the applicant exported goods in discharge of export obligation against advance
license in terms of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus., dated 11-9-2009 (hereinafter
called the notification). The rebate claims filed in respect of duty paid on export
goods were rejected by the lower adjudicating authority on the ground that the
said notification grants exemption from Customs duty on the procurement of
inputs subsequent to export of finished goods under bond.
The applicant contended that there is no condition in Notification No.
96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009 which bars grant of rebate of Central Excise
duty paid on export goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, if goods
are exported on payment of duty. The applicant has quoted Condition No. (vi) of
the notification, which reads as follows :
“that in respect of imports made after the discharge of export obligation in full,
and if facility under Rule 18 (rebate of duty paid on materials used in the
manufacture of resultant product) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Central
Excise Rules, 2002 or CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
has not been availed and the importer furnishes proof to this effect to the
satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs as the case may be, then the imported materials
may be cleared without furnishing a bond specified in condition (v).”
The above condition states that importer is not required to furnish a bond in re-
spect of subsequent imports in case export goods are not cleared under Rule 18
of Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is observed that the interpretation of the re-
spondent that an assessee who has been issued Advance Authorisation license
under Notification No. 96/2009-Customs, dated 11-9-2009 cannot export goods
on payment of duty and subsequently claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Ex-
cise Rules, 2002 is erroneous.
Secondly the applicant has relied on judgment in the case of M/s. In-
dorama, Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE [2013 (296) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. - Mum.)] wherein the
Tribunal held that the holder of Advance License under Annual Requirement in
terms of Notification No. 94/2004-Customs, dated 10-9-2004 can export under
claim for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said notification
allowed the discharge of export obligation subject to the condition that exports
were not under claim for rebate under Rule 18 or sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of Cen-
tral Excise Rules, 2002. As per the judgment CESTAT drew parity with the ad-
vance license holders under Notification No. 93/2004-Customs, dated 10-9-2004
wherein there was no such condition and granted relief to the assessees on the
premise that advance license holders on annual basis cannot be put to disad-
vantage in comparison to holders of advance license on consignment basis.
5. Since there is no bar to claim rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise
Rules, 2002 in respect of exports cleared on payment of duty under Notification
- EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  229