9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quently refunded to the ‘manufacturer’ (units availing area based exemption). Units located in other parts of the country are permitted to take full credit of duty paid on the inputs (procured from J&K North East, Sikkim and Kutch) under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This rule is a special dispensation to ensure that the manufacturing units in North East etc., are not placed at disadvantage vis-à-vis units outside such areas. Further, there is no bar on utilizing this credit for payment of duty on goods cleared for exports. The units located in other parts of the country manufacture the goods, and pay the applicable excise duty on export of goods, and therefore, they are eligible to claim rebate of said duties under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the present case, the units located in other parts of the country are the manufacturers, and no portion of duty paid by them is refunded to them, therefore rebate cannot be denied to such units. - F. No. 195/185/2010-RA-CX - 1457/2011-CX - Dated:- 2-11-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Satya Prem Majumdar, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. [Order]. This revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been paid on the inputs (procured from above Area Based Exemption Unit) used for manufacture of export goods in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. 2.2 The jurisdictional authorities after scrutiny of rebate claim documents issued a show cause notice asking the applicant to show cause as to why their claim under reference should not be rejected because the same was not admissible in terms of Notification No. 37/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-9-2007 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.3 fter due process of law, the case was adjudicated and rejected because the claim was found restricted under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), and 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), both dated 6-9-2004 along with all the above referred clarifications. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the Applicant party filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned order-in-original and rejected the rebate claims. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant party has filed this revision application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Divisional Officer of their jurisdiction by 7th day of the following month and the Divisional Officer is under the obligation to refund the amount of excise duty that was paid from the current account by 15th day of the said following month. Therefore as per the Central Excise invoices, in the hand of the buyers, all such goods are duty paid, despite the fact that the manufacturers availed exemption by way of refund. The buyers are eligible to avail Cenvat credit of duty so borne by them or rebate of duty so paid on the inputs in case of export. In this connection the provisions of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are referred. The said Instruction appears to have clarified that the manufacturers, who availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999, among others, are not entitled to rebate of duty paid on exported goods in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules. The applicants do not want to dispute the correctness of the said Instruction, but consider it sufficient to state that the same does not apply to the manufacturers who do not avail exemption under the Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. 4.4 The instructions containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-2006 cannot be applied to such units as the term duty paid used in Rule 18 ibid does not include that portion of duty which is subsequently refunded to the manufacturer of inputs, who availed area based exemption. In the instant case the applicants being located in the State of West Bengal and having not availed the benefit of area based exemption, the inputs received under the cover of duty paid invoices, cannot be treated as non-duty paid goods and therefore, benefit of rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Rules cannot be denied. 4.8 That the contention of the Assistant Commissioner that the restriction equally applies to the grant of rebate to the manufacturers elsewhere, not availing such area-based exemption, in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 for just being issued under Rule 18 of the Rules, is not tenable in law. 4.9 In any case the impugned order-in-appeal is clearly misconceived having been passed with a gross non-application of mind and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 28-7-2011 25-8-2011 but hearing was atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an exemption and rebate of said amount cannot be granted. However, the rebate of duty paid on excisable goods cleared from factory, under area based above said Notification was allowed by amending Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/2002 vide Finance Bill 2008 retrospectively for the period 8-7-99 to 7-12-2006. Subsequently, Notification No. 37/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-9-2007 amended Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 by adding clause in para 2 which inter alia stipulated that rebate of duty paid on export of goods manufactured by a manufacturer availing specified area based exemption notifications, shall not be admissible. But the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 relating to rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacturer of exported goods is not amended so as to restrict or disallow such input rebate claims. However, Government notes that as para 5 of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the procedures for export, as specified under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 or Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 are to be followed. It is not clear whether the prescribed procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
