Rebate Authority Can’t Review Assessment | Gujarat HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

Rebate duty refund
Case Details: Laxmisagar Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 32 Centax 96 (Guj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Bhargav D. Karia & D.N. Ray, JJ.
  • S/Shri Sudhanshu Bissa with Paresh M. Dave, for the Petitioner.
  • Shri Maunil G. Yajnik, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a merchant exporter, exported goods on payment of duty and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for refund of duty paid on the export goods. The jurisdictional authority partially sanctioned the claim, disallowing the differential amount between the assessable value and the Free on Board (FOB) value, and allowed re-credit of the disallowed amount in the Cenvat account. The petitioner contended that, as per Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX, dated 03-02-2000, the rebate sanctioning authority was required only to examine the admissibility of the rebate of duty paid on export goods covered by the claim and not to examine the correctness of the assessment. It was further contended that allowing re-credit in the Cenvat account was meaningless for a merchant exporter who did not maintain any Cenvat Credit account. The matter was accordingly placed before the Gujarat High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, in terms of Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX, dated 03-02-2000, the rebate sanctioning authority should not examine the correctness of assessment but should only examine the admissibility of the rebate of duty paid on the export goods covered by a claim. The Court further held that allowing re-credit in the Cenvat account is meaningless in the case of a merchant exporter who does not maintain any Cenvat Credit account. Therefore, the differential amount between the assessable value and the FOB value, representing the differential rebate amount, is required to be allowed in cash to the petitioner.

List of Cases Cited

List of Departmental Clarification Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Maintenance Reimbursements Not Part of Renting Service | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Construction Agreements With Landowners Are Works Contract | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Market Support Services to Foreign Entity Treated as Export: CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Lease of Land for Port and Marine Activities Attracts Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025

Services to Foreign Client for Market Promotion Qualify as Export | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

Installing Software With COA Stickers Is Sale—Not Service | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

September 5, 2025

SC Rules Freight Collected by Agents Not Taxable

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 30, 2025

Service Tax Demand Invalid When Trade Discounts Passed On | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 28, 2025

CGST Officers Can Pursue Pending Service Tax Matters | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 22, 2025

Constructive Res Judicata Applies to Successive Writs under Article 226 | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

August 21, 2025