9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... termining admissibility of rebate claim is that duty paid goods are exported out of India - the duty paid nature of goods is not established - Thus rebate claim are not admissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004 - the rebate claims are rightly rejected by the lower authorities - Applicant’s Neelambur Unit has not manufactured the goods - thus the payment of duty by debiting their cenvat credit account has become an excess payment which has to be treated as voluntary deposit with Government - There is no authority to retain excess paid amount - excess paid amount may be allowed to be recredited in their Cenvat credit account – Order partially modified – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - F. No. 195/1206-1215/2011-RA - Order Nos. 142-151/2013-CX - Dated:- 22-2-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri R. Arumugam, Consultant, for the Assessee. ORDER These revision applications are filed by the applicants M/s. K.P.R. Mill Ltd., Neelambur post, Coimbatore against the order-in-appeal CMB-CEX-000-APP-125 to 133-11, dated 29-8-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore with respect to Orders-in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities are registered with the department and fall under the Jurisdiction of a single range namely IV A Range . The instant case, the applicants exported the goods manufactured at their Neelambur unit. For the sake of consolidation of export cargo, they had taken the goods to their Arasur/Tirupur units, from where the goods were consolidated in a single container for onward export to various countries. It is pertinent to note that all these three units belong to one entity viz., KPR Mills Ltd. and exports as well as payment of duty have been made by the same entity but from different units. The contention of the First Appellate Authority is that as per the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, the payment of duty should be made by the same unit from where the goods were removed for export. This fact is not in dispute, that the unit had paid duty under the Neelambur unit, but the removal of goods had taken place from the factory premises of other units. This fact has been explained by the applicants but the same was not taken into consideration by the First Appellate authority while passing the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4.3 In terms of condition (a) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred for the group and not for the individual unit. It is also to be noted that the export has been made in the name of K.P.R. Mill Limited only. 4.6 The Order-in-original certifies the following facts beyond all doubts : The goods were manufactured by a unit belonging to M/s. K.P.R. Mill Limited The goods were exported from a unit of M/s. K.P.R. Mill Limited Appropriate duty has been paid by a unit of M/s. K.P.R. Mill Limited The rebate has been claimed by M/s. K.P.R. Mill Limited Only one claim has been filed and no one else has claimed the rebate The claim has been filed before the proper officer within the time limit and with all documentary proof as required The eligibility or accumulation of credit under Cenvat Account from which the duty, has not been disputed or denied The appellants are in a position to prove the realization of sale proceeds which is one of the main objective and purpose of exports to other countries. In view of the above undisputable facts, it is respectfully submitted that the applicants are eligible for the rebate. 4.7 It also submitted that one of the Condition stipulated in the notification is that the excisable goods shall b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral requirement can be condoned. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 14-12-2012. Shri R. Arumugam, Consultant appeared on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. They added vide their letter submitted during personal hearing that as per para 3(ix) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) even if goods are exported from some other location (arguing and not accepting) in that case also the rebate is allowable. When they had complied with the substantive part of law, the claim need not be rejected on non-observation of procedures. He further stated that in case rebate is not allowed the said amount may be allowed as recredit in the Cenvat credit account. 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 the original authority observed that the impugned goods were manufactured by M/s. K.P.R. Mill Ltd. at Anupparpalayam Unit, Tirupur and Arasur Unit but duty was debited by M/s. K.P.R. Mills, Neelambur, a separate registered Unit and rebate has been claimed by K.P.R. Mills, Neelambur Unit. The original authority rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
