9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods. The appellants claimed the refund in respect of duty paid by the supplier on DC sets on the ground that the said DC sets have been exported out of India along with submersible pumps manufactured by them. The original authority, after granting personal hearing has rejected the refund. The order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Held that- export under Bond to relate to pumps manufactured only. Procedure for export by merchant exporters not followed. Original authority rightly refund claim for want of jurisdiction. No valid reason for interference with decision. - E/2639/2007-SM(BR) - 549/2010-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 12-5-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Ravi Ragha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the submersible pumps along with DC sets were exported in pursuance of a common purchase order. Duty paid nature of the DC sets and the fact of export of DC sets along with submersible pumps are not in dispute. They preferred the refund claim with the Central Excise authorities in whose jurisdiction they were manufacturing the submersible pumps of the duty paid on the bought out DC sets which had come to the factory and exported along with the submersible pumps. He submits that the duty paid on the DC sets which was borne by them should be refunded to them under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. If there was any doubt on any part of the department about the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out payment of duty under bond or under claim for rebate by them. The appellants could have stepped in as a merchant exporter of DC sets in question by following procedure prescribed for export by a merchant exporter. The appellant could have claimed drawback. There were, thus, other options which have not been availed by the appellants. The question of export under bond in respect of DC sets on which duty has already been paid does not arise. The export under bond by the appellants relate only to submersible pumps manufactured by them. In other words, the claim for refund on DC sets, manufactured in the jurisdiction of another Commissionerate has been rightly rejected by the original authority for want of jurisdiction arid the said decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
