2008 (9) TMI 781 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Requirement of pre-deposit for demanded amounts in impugned orders.
- Claim of rebate of duty under Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT).
- Allegation of violation of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus.
- Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 regarding Cenvat credit.
- Examination of conditions for rebate claim and Cenvat credit under relevant notifications.

Analysis:

1. The appellants were directed to pre-deposit specific amounts demanded in the impugned orders. The orders detailed the appeal numbers, impugned order numbers, and the respective amounts involved, as presented in a tabular format.

2. The appellants had obtained inputs, utilized Cenvat credit, and exported final products under the DFIA Scheme. Subsequently, they claimed duty rebate under Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004-CE (NT). However, proceedings were initiated based on an allegation that the rebate granted was erroneous due to a perceived violation of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued various points, emphasizing that the appellants did not import any inputs under DFIA scrips and that the exports were made using Cenvat inputs procured in the regular course of business. It was contended that there was no prohibition against using ordinary Cenvat inputs for DFIA exports under applicable laws.

4. The learned JCDR representing the Revenue highlighted the policy under the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009, stating that no Cenvat credit facility would be available for inputs imported or procured against the authorization. The Advocate countered this argument, asserting that the inputs used by the appellants were not authorized by the DGFT, thus not falling under the restriction.

5. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellants did not claim rebate on the inputs used in the final products and that the credit taken was not for indigenously procured inputs against authorization. The Tribunal analyzed relevant policy and notification provisions to conclude that there was no violation by the appellants regarding the rebate claim or Cenvat credit utilization.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a full waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty demanded along with interest until the appeal's disposal. Given the substantial amounts involved, the matter was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date.

This judgment illustrates a detailed examination of the appellants' compliance with relevant notifications and policies concerning duty rebate claims and Cenvat credit utilization, ultimately resulting in a favorable decision for the appellants based on the Tribunal's assessment of the merits of the case.