9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir explanation as to why the rebate claim should not be rejected on account of the infringement of the declaration filed by them that they had not claimed any duty drawback under the Customs and Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995. After due process of law, the original adjudicating Authority rejected all the claims. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-original the applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the impugned orders-in-original 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 applicants have made a detailed written submissions at the time of personal hearing, which have been referred as certain additional written submissions without narrating the submissions made by the applicants. The Commissioner neither discussed the submissions made by the applicants nor pass a speaking order as to why the said submissions were not acceptable to him. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) suffers from the vir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts of exported goods as per conditions stipulated under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. 4.3 Judgments relied upon by the applicants in support of their case are : * Associated Dye-Stuff Industries v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 732 (Tri.) * Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 300 (GOI) * Esteem Services v. UOI - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 25 (Bom.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 106 (Bom.) * CCE, Kanpur v. Meghdoot Pistons (P) Ltd. - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Del.) 4.4 The Assistant Commissioner in Para 14 of his impugned order-in-original dated 23-12-2008 has gravely erred in relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CCE, Nagpur v. Indorama Textiles Ltd., 2006 (200) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) (Para 18) to state that rebate provided in Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is only on duty paid on one of the items i.e. either on excisable goods or on materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods, hence assessee not entitled to claim rebate on both items. The applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bai-IV vide his Order-in-Original No. K-II/319-R/2009 (MTC), dated 8-4-2009. 4.7 The CBEC has issued clarifications in respect of Cotton Made-up articles & Man-made fabrics and sarees vide their Circular Nos. 209/43/96-CX., dated 9-5-1996 and 238/72/96-CX., dated 12-8-1996 clarifying that it was not the intention of the Government to deny the benefit of rebate of the excise duty altogether where the same element of duty is not included in the drawback rate i.e. Central Excise Duty paid on the processing of cotton fabrics used for the manufacture of cotton made-up articles exported and that rebate in respect of Central Excise Duty suffered on processing of man-made fabrics/sarees under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is admissible even if the drawback in respect of Sl. Nos. 5404 & 5503 of the Drawback Schedule is being claimed by the exporter for the same export goods. The ratio of the above clarifications is also applicable to the applicants in view of binding circulars and decisions of Tribunals supra. 4.8 The directions contained in Board's Circular No. 24/2001-Cus., dated 20-4-2001 have been reiterated in Circular No. 19/2005-Cus., dated 21-3-2005. The CBEC in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that they have claimed and got drawback under All Industry Rate only of Customs portion and no drawback in respect of Central Excise Duty allocation under the All Industry Rate of Drawback has been claimed. On this contention, Government would observe that there is no contrary evidence on record. Moreover, the applicants rebate claim is governed under Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, wherein certain conditions and procedure has been prescribed for claim of rebate. Government notes that the perusal of the said Notification reveals that the said Notification nowhere debar any exporter-party from rebate in case the party exported the goods under claim of drawback, under All Industry Rate in force. Government has also perused conditions contain in sub-para 1.5 of Part-V of Chapter 8 of the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instruction as on 1-9-01 which says that the benefit of input stage rebate cannot be claimed in any of the following situations : (i) where the finished goods are exported under claim for duty drawback; (ii) where the finished goods are exported in discharge of export obligations under a valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
