9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The said rebate claims filed by applicant on 6-5-2011, 6-6-2011 and 21-6-2011 were rejected by original authority for non-compliance of the provisions of Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order. Government notes that substantial condition for claiming input rebate is that paid inputs are used in the manufacturing of exported goods. The lower authorities have not discussed anything about use of duty paid materials in the manufacture of exported goods. Applicant claimed that they had submitted documentary evidences along with rebate claims to prove the use of duty paid materials i.e. polyster staple fibre in the manufacturing of exported goods. Applicant has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licants were clearing their final products without payment of duty availing exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004; that the applicants were not availing credit of inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products and that the applicants had purchased polyester staple fibre on payment of appropriate duties and had not availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the said polyester staple fibre. During the period from Jan. 11 to April 11 , the applicants used the said polyester staple fibre in or in relation to the manufacture of Polyester Cotton Blended Yarn and cleared the said polyester cotton blended yarn for export by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 19 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xactly similar objection and has concluded that the rebate claimed of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exported goods should not be rejected merely for not filing of the declaration and input/output norms prescribed under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the C. EX. (No. 2) Rules, 2001 [now Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the C. EX. Rules, 2002] holding that substantial benefit of rebate should not be denied for procedural infractions. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Tablets India Ltd., 2010 (259) E.L.T. 191 (Mad.-HC) whereunder the Hon ble High Court has allowed the rebate which was denied for non-follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no doubt/dispute about the fact that the rebate claimed by them is of correct duty. For mere non-filing of declaration/getting approved the input/output ratio and issuing ARE-1 instead of ARE-2, they should not be deprived of the substantial benefit of rebate since it will be totally in violation of the Government s intention of boosting exports by reducing the costs of goods to be exported and the objective of the scheme of rebate. The applicants rely upon the latest decision of the Hon ble GOI s decision in the case of Sanket Industries Ltd. - 2011 (268) E.L.T. 125 (GOI) whereunder the Government of India has clearly laid down that rebate/drawback are export-oriented schemes and unduly restricted and technical interpretation of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 on ARE-1 forms. The said ARE-1 forms were endorsed with remark read as Export under NIL Rate of duty vide Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. After exporting goods in Jan. Feb., 2011, they realized that they were entitled for refund of duty paid on inputs viz., polyster staple fibre, and they were required to follow the procedure laid down under Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The said rebate claims filed by applicant on 6-5-2011, 6-6-2011 and 21-6-2011 were rejected by original authority for non-compliance of the provisions of Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order. Now applicant has filed this revision application on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ims were also rejected on ground that original and duplicate AREs-2 duty certified by Customs were not submitted as they had exported goods on ARE-1 forms. In regard Government observes that Hon ble High Court of Bombay in its judgments dated 24-4-2013 in the case of M/s. U.M. Cables v. UOI (WP No. 3102/2013 3103/2013) reported as [TIOL-386-HC-MUM-CX = 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.)], has held that rebate sanctioning authority shall not reject the rebate claim on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled. Government, therefore, in the light of principle laid down by Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the said case, is of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
