9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and manmade yarn of synthetic and artificial staple fibres falling under chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed various rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of duty paid from Cenvat credit account on goods exported to various countries and simultaneously claimed duty drawback under Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. The original authority did not find rebate claims admissible as the applicants had claimed duty drawback. Therefore, show cause notices were issued to the respondents asking them to show cause as to why an amount of rebate claim should not be rejected on the ground that they have claimed drawbac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch contrary view in the present order from the earlier view taken on the same issue by the same Commissioner (Appeals) tantamount to review of its own order which is not permissible in law. Reliance is placed on following case laws : (a) Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad v. Millat Fibres reported at 2009 (233) E.L.T. 254. (b) Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported at 2008 (223) E.L.T. 214. (c) Narendra Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot reported at 2006 (196) E.L.T. 208. (d) D.C.W. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tuticorin reported at 2004 (166) E.L.T. 169. (e) &n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by way of rebate, which has been disposed off by allowing rebate in credit and therefore it is submitted that the credit is against the application made u/s 11B and there is no other separate request required in law. It is a settled law that Department cannot keep the applicants deprived of their right to take credit of any duty paid on export of goods. If duty is not payable, then also re-credit is correct and if duty was payable, then also rebate is to be granted to the applicants. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 2-5-2011, was attended by Shri Shaleen Baheti, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents department. 6.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable in this case. Any amount paid in excess of duty liability on ones own volition cannot be treated as duty, but it has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government which is required to be returned to the respondent in the manner in which it was paid as the said amount cannot be retained by the Government without any authority of law. Accordingly the applicant is eligible for re-credit as per law. Government finds the impugned Order-in-Original as legal and proper as there is no reason to unauthorisedly hold back the said amount. 9. Accordingly, Government of India sets aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. 10. Revision Application succeeds in above term. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
