9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hene bags will amount to manufacture. We also note that the ARE-1 were signed by both the applicant and the merchant exporter and thus it is not as if the goods were being disposed of in the domestic market. The goods were cleared under an undertaking to export the goods and such exports have taken place - it is proper to waive the requirement of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of the appeal - stay granted. - C/341/2010 - Misc. Order No. 40632/2013 - Dated:- 5-3-2013 - P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri N. Venkataraman, Senior Adv., Ms. Uma Maheshwari, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, Jt. Commr. (AR) PER : Mathew John The applicant is a manufacturer of white ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for applicant submits that initially when Notification No.93/2004-Cus was published Condition No. (v) did not specifically indicate that prohibition was only against claiming rebate of duty paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of product to be exported and not claiming rebate of excise duty paid on final products as claimed by the applicant. But the position was clarified issuing a Corrigendum issued vide F.No.60550/2005-DBK dated 17.5.2005. After such correction, the said condition reads as under:- "That the export obligation as specified in the said licence (both in value and quantity terms) is discharged within the period specified in the said licence or within such extended period as may be granted by the licensin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable for deciding this dispute under the customs provisions also in respect of the same issue. 4. Opposing the prayer of the learned senior counsel, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the applicant themselves should have exported the goods but they have exported through a merchant exporter. He argues that conditions (ii), (iii) and (v) of the said Notification would imply that the goods had to be exported by the actual user, that is the applicant and since in this case the goods were exported by a merchant exporter, the benefit of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus cannot be extended to them. He also relies on para 4.1.4 and 4.1.5 of Foreign Trade Policy 2004 - 09, according to which the actual user importing the material could disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been exported is not disputed is not disputed. Further, it is not clear how the rebate claimed by the merchant exporter is a benefit that would not have been available to the applicant if the applicant was to export the goods. There is no Chapter Note under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff in relation to Heading 1701 to the effect that packing of sugar in polythene bags will amount to manufacture. We also note that the ARE-1 were signed by both the applicant and the merchant exporter and thus it is not as if the goods were being disposed of in the domestic market. The goods were cleared under an undertaking to export the goods and such exports have taken place. We also find that the CBEC had issued clarification vide Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
