9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise 'E1' Division Bangalore. Since issue involved in all the appeals is same they have been taken up together for decision by this common order. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicants are the holders of Central Excise Registration bearing No. AAAFS3718HXM001 and are engaged in the manufacture and export of readymade garments falling under Chapter Heading No. 6205 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They filed 12 rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as the duty was paid by them on the goods exported. A show cause notice was issued to the applicant as to why the respective rebate claims should not be rejected under Rule 18, since the exports have been made under DEEC A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the applicant. In other words the notification has to be applied by an officer of customs while assessing the imported goods at the time of clearance and it is the customs officer, who has to determine whether the conditions of a notification are complied or not. Whereas the instant proceedings pertain to the claim of rebate by the applicant. Assessment of imported goods is one thing and rebate duty paid on export goods is an altogether different proceedings. While the former is the domain of the customs authorities, the latter is to be determined and granted by the central excise authorities in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. The two proceedings cannot be mixed up. 4.4 The issue whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DEEC in respect of raw materials and rebate of duty paid on export goods cannot be said to amount to double benefit. 4.7 That Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000 clarifies that the rebate sanctioning authority should not examine the correctness of assessment but should examine only the admissibility of the rebate of duty paid on the export goods in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner ought to have appreciated that as per this circular the Assistant Commissioner ought to have granted the rebate of duty paid on the export goods. 4.8 In the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd. reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 124 (G.O.I.), it is held that the rebate is not deniable on the ground that goods cleared for export we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 27-7-2011 & 25-8-2011. Shri L. Badri Narayanan, Advocate and Shri M.S. Sivaramakrishnan, Advocate appeared for hearing on 25-8-2011 on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody appeared for hearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal. 7. In the instant case, applicant exported goods in discharge of export obligation against advance licence for annual requirement in terms of Notification No. 94/04-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. The rebate claims filed in respect of duty paid on exported goods were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that condition No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge export obligation by supplying the resultant product to the ultimate exporter in terms of para 4.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy." The plain reading of the provision of said condition reveals that export obligation is to be discharged within specified period, by exporting resultant products manufactured and in respect of such exports facility under Rule 18 or Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed. The facility under Rule 18 includes rebate of duty paid on export goods as well as rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of such exported goods. The said customs notification debars the applicant from availing complete facility under Rule 18. 8.1 The applicant relied upon corrigendum dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -9-2011 the applicant mainly placed reliance and interpretation on Notification 43/2001/C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-3-2001 and 94/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. Here the provision of Notification 43/200l-C.E. (N.T.) read with C.B.E. & C. Circular 792/25/04/CX., dated 2-6-2004 reveals that the said notification is applicable in terms of Rule 19(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 only and not under Rule 18 of the said Rules. There is clear prohibition under law for claiming rebate of duty under Rule 18 where the exports are made under Advance Licence Scheme in terms of Not. No. 94/04-Cus. 8.3 The present claims are filed under provision of Notification Nos. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
