9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Applicants clear their final product to various countries by way of export without payment of duty or on payment of duty under a claim of rebate. The applicants availed the benefit of Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 and procured phenolic moulding powder falling under sub-heading 39.09 without payment of duty under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the purpose of using the same in the manufacture of goods which are exported. The applicants exported the goods on payment of duty by way of debiting their cenvat account and filed a rebate claim for a sum of Rs. 3,62,020/-. The applicants were issued with a show cause notice vide show cause notice dated 10-1-06 requirin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 19 of Central Excise Rules are independent Rules which read as follows : Rule 18 : "Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by Notification grant Rebate of Duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations if any and fulfilment of such procedure, as may be specified in the Notification. Rule 19(1) : Any excisable goods may be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the Producer or the Manufacturer or the Warehouse or any other premises, as may be approved by the Government. (b) Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the Produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; The applicant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Murli Agro Products v. C.C.E. reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 277 has held that benefit under Notification 43/2001 cannot be denied and refund can not be rejected merely because there was some minor lapse on the part of the assessee. The lower appellate authority has rejected reliance on this case on the ground that it was not a case of export under Rule 19(1) of the Central Excise Rules. It has been laid down in the said case that where use of duty paid inputs in the manufacture of export goods was not disputed refund of the same cannot be rejected on flimsy grounds. The order of the lower authority is therefore bad in law and needs to be set aside. (g) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant has procured the inputs without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 19 deals with the export of goods without payment of duty. 8. As per Rule 19(2) "Any material may be removed without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises, for goods which are exported as may be approved by the Commissioner." 9. Government further observes that the Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 which have been issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the purpose of procuring the inputs without payment of duty for use in the manufacture o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
