India Yamaha Motor Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that passing of impugned order denying rebate claim under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules without dealing with crucial issues and without considering the submissions is not justifiable. Accordingly, order is set aside and matter is remanded back.
Facts- The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 17 January 2022 made by the 2nd Respondent denying the Petitioner a rebate totalling Rs. 3,26,17,188/- and interest thereon under Section 11 B(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd Respondent to forthwith grant and pay the same.
Conclusion- The Petitioner first contended that no duty, i.e., BED and/or NCCD, was payable on the final products exported outside India. The Petitioner, however, had the option to pay such duty before exporting and afterwards claim a rebate, or to export by submitting a bond without paying any duty. The Petitioner contended that, since both modes were allowed, a parity of consequences was required, and the Petitioner could not be disadvantaged for adopting one of the permissible modes. This issue of parity, though squarely raised by the Petitioner, does not appear to have been considered or dealt with in the impugned common order. Any decision on such an issue would involve examination of the factual aspect of whether parity would indeed be a casualty if the revenue’s version were allowed to prevail.
