9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed concessional rate of duty @ 4% Adv. unconditionally for 100% cotton fabrics and in this case the appellants also availed CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services used in the manufacture of 100% cotton fabrics, which were exported. On the other hand, Notification No.30/2004-CE prescribed Nil rate of duty on 100% cotton fabrics subject to the condition that no CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs shall be availed & the appellants availed exemption under this Notification also in respect of 100% cotton fabrics cleared for home consumption. On 07.12.2008, Notification No.29/2004-CE was amended vide Notification No.58/2008-CE and the rate of duty on the said goods was reduced from 4% Adv. to Nil without imposition of any condition. A fresh Notification No.59/2008-CE was simultaneously issued on 07.12.2008, which prescribed 4% rate of duty on the said goods without imposing any condition. Thus on 07.12.2008, there were two notifications, prescribing different effective rates of duty Notification No.29/2004-CE as amended which prescribed nil rate of duty and the Notification No.59/2008-CE prescribed concessional 4% advlorem rate of duty for 100% c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed CENVAT Credit only when the goods were exported, obviously with intention to avail CENVAT credit in respect of goods exported as per Government Policy. It was his case that when goods are exported, duty paid on inputs going into such goods is not to be exported and should be available as refund, for which various schemes, such as refund / rebate of duty on inputs, drawback, purchase of inputs without payment of duty, taking of CENVAT Credit etc., are prescribed. That the lower authorities have erred in observing that the provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was applicable and Rule 6(6) would not apply to appellants case. In this context, he relied upon the following case laws: (a) Repro India Limited Vs. Union of India - [2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.)]; (b) Aarvee Denims & Exports Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I - [Order No. A/ 11694-11704/ WZB/ AHD/ 2013 dated December 3, 2013]; (c) Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. - [2010 (254) ELT 417 (H.P.)]; and (d) Well Known Polyesters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi - [2012 (25) STR 411 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. (iii) That in any case the entire facts were in the notice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egory 3 of exemption notification and exemption under category 2 was withdrawn. This is hardly a ground sustainable in law. On the contrary, well settled law is that in case the applicant is entitled to benefit under two different Notifications or under two different Heads, he can claim more benefit and it is the duty of the authorities to grant such benefits if the applicant is otherwise entitled to such benefit. Therefore, non-consideration on the part of the Deputy Director General (Medical), DGHS to the prayer of the appellant in claiming exemption under category 3 of the notification is illegal and improper. The prayer ought to have been considered and decided on merits. Grant of exemption under category 2 of the notification or withdrawal of the said benefit cannot come in the way of the applicant in claiming exemption under category 3 if the conditions laid down thereunder have been fulfilled. The High Court also committed the same error and hence the order of the High Court also suffers from the same infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 8. In the case of Grand Card Industries (supra), Delhi High Court held as under: &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioners had manufactured both dutiable and exempted final product (packaged software and printed books respectively). The petitioner has taken credit on input used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products. If the exempted products are exported outside India the provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are applicable. Therefore, the bar provided under Rule 6(1) and the liability created under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted. By denying to the petitioner from exporting the printed books under bond what the respondents want to do is in fact to levy 10% on the sale price of the printed books in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In our opinion this is wholly impermissible. The provisions as now contained in Rule 6 of the Credit Rules, 2004 were contained in Rules 57C and 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they stood prior to 1st April, 2000. From 1st April, 2000 till 30th June, 2001 similar provisions were contained in Rule 57AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the context of these Rules circular dated 8th November, 2001 of the Ministry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
