9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The issued involved in this appeal is whether the refund of Cenvat credit of AED (Textiles and Textile Articles) paid on inputs under Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act (AED T T), used in the manufacture of final product exported under rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules on payment of duty, is av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the requirement in the notification issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 that the question of bond or letter of undertaking could arise. Such Notification 42/2001-C.E., dated 26-6-2001, was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, which provided export under bond of the goods which were exported from the factory without payment of duty. The exporter was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he specific excise duty relatable to Rule 18 read with Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No application for rebate of additional excise duty which was paid on the inputs, was made under Rule 18 read with Section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act. Therefore, an application for refund of such additional excise duty by way of Cenvat credit in the accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Rule 19, the refund claim could not have been rejected on the ground that the bond was not executed. It is not the purpose of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to deny refund even in the cases in which the question of execution of bond cannot arise, when the inputs are used in the final products which are cleared for export or used in the intermediate products cleared for exports, but for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of which rebate claim was separately made under Rule 18. The rebate claim was confined only to basic excise duty. Therefore, it did not debar the appellant from claiming refund of additional excise duty under Rule 5, since the Cenvat credit relating to such duty could not be adjusted. 3. The Revenue filed appeal and the Hon ble Punjab and H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
