9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture of electric cars cleared for export under bond were not utilised. Held that:- appellant had cleared the goods for export on payment of duty as per ARE-1 and filed rebate claims which were sanctioned. The accumulation of Cenvat credit has not arisen because of exports but because of difference in rates of duty on inputs and the final products. It is also undisputed that there cannot be any bond or letter of undertaking when the export was made on payment of duty - It can be seen from the Rule 5, it is very clear that refund cannot be allowed when the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback or claimed rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002. In this case, the appellants had claimed rebate of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e office of the Tribunal on 18th July, 2011. 3. Thereafter the matter has been coming up before this Tribunal. On 18-8-2011 the matter was adjourned as requested by the counsel for the appellants. Thereafter on 13-9-2011, nobody was present on behalf of the appellant. On 18-1-2012, matter was adjourned. Thereafter on 19-6-2012, the matter did not reach and on 25-7-2012, the learned counsel for the appellants requested for adjournment. Again on 30th July, 2012, on the request of the counsel for the appellants the matter was adjourned to 7-8-2012 and again on 17-9-2012, advocate sought adjournment. It was recorded that the matter adjourned finally to 18-9-2012. Again on 18-9-2012, the matter did not reach and got adjourned. Thereafter the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product exported under bond and or letter of undertaking and not otherwise. The appellants also had relied upon the decision in the case of CCE v. Indo Dane Textile Industries [2007 (213) E.L.T. 117 (Tri.)]. It was submitted that there is an accumulation of credit for the reason that duty payable on the final products is 8% whereas inputs suffered 16%. 6. It was submitted by the learned AR that the provision of Rule 5 specifically states that refund of Cenvat credit shall be allowed only if the manufacturer of the provider of input service does not claim drawback or rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules in respect of such duty. In this case, the refund claim has been rejected on the ground that the appellants had claimed rebate of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed if the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, or claims rebate of duty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in respect of such duty; or claims rebate of service tax under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 in respect of such tax. 8. It can be seen from the reproduced rule, it is very clear that refund cannot be allowed when the manufacturer or provider of output service avails of drawback or claimed rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002. In this case, the appellants had claimed rebate of duty and there is no contrary submission. Therefore the rejection of refund claim on this ground has to be sustained. 9. As regards t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
