Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 1001
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ. HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J.
Rajasthan Textile Mills
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4470 of 2012, decided on 01.10.2012
Sanjay Jhanwar, for Petitioner;
Anil Mehta, for Respondents
Headnote:Central Excise Rules, 2002, Rule 18 and 19 — Grant of exemption of duty/rebate both on inputs as well as finished goods — Made a prayer to interpret the word "or" used in Rule 18 as "and" to provide benefit for both — Held — As per provisions of Rule 18, grant of rebate of duty paid is available on excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods i.e. on raw material — It is open to claim the benefit of rebate either on manufactured/finished goods or on raw material, not on both — The word "or" used in Rule 18 cannot be interpreted as word "and" to provide benefit for both.
Writ petitions dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 12 to 15)
dsUnzh; mRikn fu;e] 2002] fu;e 18 o 19 & dPps eky o rS;kj eky nksuksa ij 'kqYd@NwV ls eqfDr iznku djuk & bu nksuksa ij ifjykHk nsus gsrq fu;e 18 esa iz;qDr 'kCn ^^;k** dh O;k[;k ^^vkSj** ds :i esa djus dh izkFkZuk dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;e 18 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj lankf;r 'kqYd ij NwV mRikn ;ksX; oLrqvksa ;k ,sls eky ds fuekZ.k ;k fuekZ.k izfØ;k esa iz;qDr lkexzh vFkkZr~ dPps eky ij lankf;r 'kqYd ij miyC/k gS & bl izdkj NwV ds ykHk dk nkok ;k rks fufeZr eky ij ;k dPps eky ij fd;k tk ldrk gS] u fd nksuksa ij & fu;e 18 esa iz;qDr 'kCn ^^;k** dh O;k[;k nksuksa ij ykHk ikus gsrq 'kCn ^^vkSj** ds :i esa ugha dh tk ldrhA
;kfpdk,a [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 9] 10] 12 ls 15½
Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—Heard finally.
2. The writ petitions have been preferred questioning the legality of orders passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) in the revision applications filed by the petitioner as against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) of the Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur.
3. Question raised in the petitioners is that under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 2002'), rebate of duty paid on excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods is available on both i.e. excisable goods and raw material simultaneously. Thus, the word "or" used in Rule 18 should be read as "and".
4. Since the issue involved in all the petitioners is identical, they are being decided by this common order.
5. Facts in short are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of M.M. Yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short, `the Act of 1985'). Petitioner had filed various rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 on the ground that it had used duty paid inputs in the manufacture of M.M. Yarn which was cleared for export on payment of duty; hence, the duty paid by it on inputs as well as finished goods is sought to be refunded under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 read with Section 11B(2)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, `the Act of 1944'). The petitioner had also filed requisite combined declaration, as per notification No. 21/2004-Central Excise (N.T.). The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims on the ground that Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 does not permit grant of rebate of duty paid on exported finished goods simultaneously with the rebate of duty paid on inputs. Appeals preferred against the said orders were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur and the orders were affirmed. Aggrieved thereby, revision applications were filed before the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, which were also dismissed. Hence, the writ petitions have been preferred.
6. Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised the submission that the word "or" used in Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 should be read as "and", considering the language used in Notifications No. 19/2004- Central Excise (N.T.) and 21/2004-Central Excise (N.T.), whole of the duty paid on excisable goods has been exempted. He has also relied upon the combined form for claiming the rebate and Rule 19 of the Rules of 2002 to submit that whole of the duty paid on manufactured goods is exempted under the said Rule. As such, when the petitioner has opted for Rule 18, he cannot be put at a disadvantageous situation in the matter of claiming such rebate.
7. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned orders. He has submitted that there is no reason to read the word "or" "and", in the context and manner in which it has been used in Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. A plain reading of the Rule makes it clear that the rebate of duty paid on inputs and rebate of duty paid on finished goods are different stages; as such, they are not admissible simultaneously. Rebate of duty on inputs has already been allowed, as such, the petitioner cannot claim the same on finished exported goods; the opinion formed by the concerned authorities in this regard is appropriate. Thus, no case for interference is made out.
8. Firstly, we come to the question of interpretation of Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002, which reads thus:-
"Rule 18. Rebate of duty.-Where 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 fulfillment of such procedure, as
