9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cies removed to 100% EOU/Manufacturer-exporter under CT-3 certificate and ultimately used by recipient for goods exported X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (A) who upheld the order of the lower authority. The stand of the Department is that, in the present case, the user industries have not directly procured the materials from the manufacturer. In other words, the appellant is not a manufacturer of the materials sent to the 100% EOU/Exporter. For the above reasons, the refund was sought to be denied and the Commissioner (A) upheld the rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utlining the procedure to be adopted by any user industry for procuring the goods which will be used in the manufacture of final products to be exported. 4. I find that the appellant had removed the goods only on the strength of CT-3 Certificate issued by the departmental officers. The user industry had also followed the procedure outlined in Notification No. 43/2001. Further, Rule 19(2) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by him to EOU/Exporter and derive benefit of Rule 19(2). In these circumstances, it was not correct on the part of the revenue to have advised the appellant to reverse the input credit. In these circumstances, the appellant is rightly entitled for the refund of the credit reversed. Thus, I allow the appeal with consequential relief.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
