Rebate of duty is restricted to the quantity of goods actually exported, not quantity dispatched from factory.

The petitioner, a manufacturer of Metallurgical Coke, cleared specific quantities of goods from its factory for export to Singapore between April and May 2011

Central Excise duty was paid on the total weight recorded at the factory gate

Upon arrival at Mundra Port and subsequent loading into the vessel, a discrepancy was noted between the quantity cleared from the factory and the quantity actually exported—the exported weight was significantly lower due to alleged moisture loss

The petitioner applied for a rebate of the full duty paid under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, the Department sanctioned the rebate only for the quantity actually exported as per the shipping bills, rejecting the claim for the "shortfall" quantity (approximately 1794.806 MT in the lead case)

The petitioner challenged the orders of the lower authorities and the Revisional Authority

The court applied Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which permits the Central Government to grant a rebate of duty paid on "excisable goods" provided they are "exported"

The 'Explanation' to Rule 18 defines "export" as taking goods out of India to a place outside India

The court further relied on Notification No. 19/2004-CE (N.T.), which mandates that goods must be exported after payment of duty directly from the factory

Crucially, the court followed the precedent in Union of India v. Rajindra Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited (2004) 10 SCC 187, which established that "export" is only complete when goods are taken out of the territorial waters of India; thus, duty benefits are linked to actual export

The court reasoned that Rule 18 and its Explanation make the act of "taking goods out of India" a quintessential condition for claiming a rebate

While the petitioner paid duty on the higher weight at the factory gate under Rule 4, the rebate under Rule 18 is intrinsically tied to the quantity actually leaving the country

The court observed a substantial discrepancy (up to 9% weight loss) between the cleared and exported goods

It noted that the petitioner failed to declare the potential moisture content in the statutory ARE-1 forms or invoices at the time of removal from the factory

Without such a declaration, the Customs authorities could not verify if the shortage was truly due to moisture or other causes. Following the Rajindra Dyeing principle, the court held that since the deficient quantity never left Indian territory, it did not qualify as an "export," and therefore, no rebate could be granted on the duty paid for that missing portion

The court found no infirmity in the orders passed by the respondent authorities. Consequently, all Special Civil Applications were dismissed, and the Rule was discharged