9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the case are that the applicants are manufacturers of cotton yarn and fabrics falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are having factories at Neelambur, Arasur, Anupparpalayam/Tirupur. Applicants have filed rebate claims by preparing Central Excise invoices and debiting excise duty in their Cenvat credit accounts for export of goods manufactured at their other units. It appeared that the amounts claimed as rebate by the applicant is not admissible since the duty paid by applicant from its accumulated Cenvat credit for the goods manufactured and exported by other unit cannot treated as duty paid in terms of Central Excise Law. Hence show cause notices were issued proposing to reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the above manufacturing facilities 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.), da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the claim of rebate has been filed only by the factory who had paid the duty on the goods exported. None of the above points have been disputed by either the Adjudicating Authority or the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the applicants submit that the applicants are eligible for the rebate. 4.5 It is submitted respectfully that the crux of the allegation is that as per Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended; we have not exported the goods after payment of duty directly from a factory. The allegation is not correct as in the case of appellants, these two conditions have been met viz., the goods have been exported from a factory viz., Arasur Unit of M/s. K.P.R. Mills Limited where the manufacture of expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 be exported after payment of duty, directly from a factory or warehouse, except otherwise as permitted by the CBEC by general order or special order. Therefore it is incorrect to state that the rebate can be allowed only if the goods are exported from the factory alone. Even the same can be exported from a warehouse or any other place duly permitted for the purpose. As per the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other units, especially when the facts of export, realization of sale proceeds, payment of duty and complying other formalities are undisputable. 4.10 In this regard it is submitted respectfully that the department had denied the rebate on a narrow ground of non-compliance of procedural requirement. In this regard, the Honourable Revisionary Authority in the case of Barot Exports reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 321 has held that payment of duty and export of goods the fundamental requirement is met, other procedural 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 ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment in the name of another unit and hence rejected the claim of rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders of the original authority. Now the applicants have filed this revision applications on the grounds stated at para (4) above. 8. Government notes that as per Central Excise procedures, separate registration required in respect of separate premises and therefore the accountal of goods (input and manufactured goods & their removal) maintenance of records, payment of duty, filing of returns and all the Central Excise procedures has to be done separately in each of the registered unit, irrespective of their ownership and central excise jurisdiction in the given circumstances. Hence the availment and utilization of accumulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
