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Your email address will not be published.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
Spice Mix Adding Flavour and Aroma Classifiable as Spices Under Tariff 0910 91 00 SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

November 1, 2025

Refund on Abated Value Denied Without Challenging Self-Assessment | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 31, 2025

Refund Must Be Granted as No Stay on Judgment Excluding Trade Discounts From Turnover | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 30, 2025

Delay Beyond Condonable Limit for Fixation of Special Rate Not Excusable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Quashes SCN for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Pre-Consultation

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025

SC Upholds Tax on Ink Used in Printing Lottery Tickets

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 15, 2025

Packing or Labeling of Earthmoving Machines Not Manufacture | SC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 14, 2025

Subscription and Entrance Fees from Members Not Liable to Service Tax | CESTAT

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 13, 2025

Independent Appeal Against ROM Order Dismissed Only Final Tribunal Order Appealable | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 9, 2025

SCN Without Pre-Consultation for ₹50 Lakh Demand Quashed | HC

Excise & Service Tax • News • Case Chronicles

October 6, 2025