TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This is a mandatory condition to avail benefit of duty free procurement of inputs under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, revision application is rejected - - - 379/2010-CX - Dated:- 23-3-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by M/s. TVS Srichakra Ltd., Madurai against the order-in-appeal No. 185/2006 dated 26-10-2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Madurai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant M/s. TVS Srichakra Limited, the applicant herein are engaged in the manufacture of phenolic resin knobs under Chapter 39 of the schedule to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority has denied the rebate by rejecting the claim on the only ground that they have procured the inputs under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) without payment of duty read with Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and one of the condition in the said Notification is that the goods using the said inputs must be exported without payment of duty under Rule 19(1) only. But the goods in question, having been exported under Rule 18 on payment of duty, the rebate is not admissible. This finding of the authorities is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The applicant submits that the above ground taken for rejection of the claim is not sustainable on law for the following reasons :- (a) Rule 18 and 19 of Central Excise Rules are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant submit that the non-fulfilment of the condition as given in the explanation to the Notification will result in recovery of duty on the inputs or materials procured for use in the manufacture of exports. This conditions cannot be extended to Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18. Both the Notifications like the Rules are independent. By invoking the said condition contained in Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 19(2) to the rebate Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) the authority has gone beyond the scope of the subject rules which is not permissible. (f) The applicant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Murli Agro Products v. C.C.E. reported in 2005 (183) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of export the principle of UNJUST ENRICHMENT also will not come into the picture. The lower authority has not answered this prayer of the applicant and the order thus needs to be set aside. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 26-10-2009. Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of both the applicant and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. From the perusal of records, Government observes that the 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 Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Rules, 2002. Once an exporter chooses to procure input duty free under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, he is bound to export the finished goods under Rule 19(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. This is a mandatory condition to avail benefit of duty free procurement of inputs under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The case laws relied upon by the applicant are not relevant in their case as all these cases deals with the relaxation of procedural/technical lapses and not of statutory/mandatory requirement of a Notification/Rule. 11. In view of the above discussions and findings, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. 12. Revision application i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|