9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was issued to the applicants for rejection of the rebate claim. Vide the impugned order, the lower authority has disallowed the rebate claim on the ground that the applicants contrary to the provisions of the Act, have discharged the duty and claimed the same as rebate which appears to be not correct. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned order of the lower adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal of the applicant. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The payment of excise duty on the finished goods exported, and the factum of the goods being exported is not under dispute. What is being disputed by the Department is that the excise duty has been paid, which is not payable at the time of export, and accordingly the rebate claim has been denied to the applicant. 4.2 In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present case, it is important to go through the findings of the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments adduced by the applicant with regard to non-applicability of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. 4.3 The procedure to procure indigenous inputs without payment of excise duty has been given under Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. This Notification pertains to indigenous goods wherein payment of 'excise duty is involved'. Imported goods have been procured without payment of import duty in terms of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., against Advance Authorization/DFIA. In order to procure the indigenous inputs without payment of excise duty, the procedure specified under Notification No. 43/2001 has to be followed. The applicant did not submit any input-output norms. They did not seek CT-3 duly countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner. They did not procure the inputs from the vendors so mentioned in the CT 3. No warehousing certificate was issued for receipt of such inputs. Therefore, there was no way that they could have procured the indigenous goods without payment of excise duty. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is in error that the applicant could not prove that the goods were not procured indigenously under Notification No. 43/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp;As regards extending the benefits of the above mentioned circular to the imports under the DFIA scheme, it is observed that the DFIA scheme is akin to the Advance Authorization scheme; both the schemes are operated more or less with the same set of provisions under the Foreign Trade policy/Hand Book of Procedures. Since the Advance Authorization Scheme is already covered by the said circular, it has been decided that the benefits of the said circular may also be extended to the imports under DFIA Scheme provided they have fulfilled the other criteria of the said circular as amended. 4.7 Case laws cited by the applicants are : * TTP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-II - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 724 (Tri.-Bang.) * Mega Fine Pharma P Ltd. v. CCE, Vapi & Ahmedabad-I - 2009 (247) E.L.T. 733 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Bharat Chemicals v. CCE, Thane - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 568 (Tri.-Mum.) * CCE v. Suncity Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (218) E.L.T. 174 (Raj.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 86 (Raj.) In their submission dated 21-11-2011, they submitted that they hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) too observed that the applicants did not came up with the evidence that the inputs were imported by availing benefit of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 therefore found no reason to interfere with the impugned order-in-original hence upheld the same. The applicant's contention is that the very show cause notice itself alleged that the procurement of input was in terms of advance licence benefit of rebate cannot be denied. They submitted that at least the duty paid by them on the final product be given back to them by way of Cenvat credit in their Cenvat account. 8. Government notes that original and appellate authority has confirmed the usage of inputs procured without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, in the manufacture of finished exported good. Applicant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to counter said conclusion. They have again stated that inputs were imported duty free under Notification 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. But they have not categorically replied this point. In the instant case, the Range Officer has categorically reported that the inputs are procured duty free in terms of Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
