2011 (5) TMI 788

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wback scheme, revision application allowed
Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri S.K. Sudan, Accountant and Gaurav Magan, Proprietor for the Assessee. [Order]. - This revision application has been filed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur against the orders-in-appeal No. 426-CE/APPL/KNP/2008, dated 21-12-08 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Kanpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. A.G. Enterprises, Agra has filed a rebate claim for Rs. 1,02,242/- and Rs. 84,441/- respectively, for the duty paid on materials used in the processing or manufacture of exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relief. 4. Aggrieved by these orders-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application on the following grounds : 4.1 All Industry rates of Duty Drawback comprises of both Customs duty component and Central Excise duty component. Thus in case of export of goods under duty drawback Scheme, drawback is granted without verifying the fact whether inputs in the said export goods had suffered Central Excise duty/countervailing duty. Accordingly, such distinction should not be made for granting rebate where rebate is barred due to the fact that claim of duty drawback has been taken. 4.2 That the applicant wish that their total defence reply be considered as grounds of appeal which has not been incorporated i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nto Excise portion and Customs portion and restricts the availment of input stage rebate, if the export of finished goods has been done under claim for drawback. In the instant case, the respondent has exported the goods under Duty Drawback and hence, they are not entitled for rebate as inputs. 10. Therefore, Government, going by the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case (i) ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] and (ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. C.C. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)] is of the considered opinion that the plain and simple wordings of the (clarified/stipulated) statute are to be strictly adhered to, is of the considered opinion that the claimed input stage rebate is not admissible in this case of exports mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X