9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssionerate as detailed in the table below :- Sr. No. Revision Application No. Orders-in-Appeal No. & date Order-in-Original No./Date 1. 195/842/12 US/400/RGD/12 dated 18-6-2012 1083/11-12/DC(Rebate)Raigarh dated 31-10-2011 2. 195/066/13 US/552/RGD/2012 dated 10-9-2012 1823/11-12/DC(Rebate)Raigarh dated 16-1-2012 3. 195/891/13 US/206/RGD/2013 dated 25-7-2013 Raigarh/ADC/200/SJ/12-13 dated 31-3-2013 4. 195/892/13 US/208/RGD/2013 dated 29-7-2013 Raigarh/ADC/142/SJ/12-13 dated 28-2-2013 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant M/s. Socomed Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Belapur are Merchant-Exporters engaged in business of export of medicaments. The applicant has exported medicaments from supporting manufacturer under vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of already sanctioned rebate claim vide Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2013 and 28-2-2013 mentioned at Sr. No. 3 & 4 of table. 2.2 The applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) against Orders-in-Original confirming demand of already sanctioned rebate claims. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (3) & (4) of table above, rejected the applicants appeals. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned four Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these four revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following common grounds :- 3.1 The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vitiated and hence needs to be set aside. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments :- (a) In Re : Audler Fasteners - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 465 (G.O.I.) (b) In Re : Cotfab Exports - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1027 (G.O.I.) 3.4 In case of the applicant, as stated hereinabove, the rebate/refund claim has been lodged for the amount of Excise Duty paid on exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 inter alia contemplates as under :- (i) The Central Government by notification grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods; (ii) Or on materials used in manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has availed cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of dutiable goods and declaration of availing benefit of Notification No. 21/2004 which inter alia stipulates the drawback of duty paid on inputs which are used in manufacture of exported goods. The condition stipulated for sanction of such rebate is non-availment of Cenvat credit. Similarly, the Notification No. 43/2001 stipulates the procurement of excisable goods which are input to be utilized for manufacture of excisable goods. Thus, the very fact that manufacturer has availed cenvat credit of the inputs used in manufacture of excisable goods negates the other two declarations. The Department has not brought out any evidence other than wrongly ticked declarations to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re availing benefit of 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, however they failed to follow the mandatory provisions as required under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the cases in favour of department vide Order-in-Appeal dated 18-6-2012 and 10-9-2012. Subsequent to these Orders-in-Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (1) & (2) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) the original authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate claim vide Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2013 and 28-2-2013. The applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of duty payment. As such, the exported goods are duty paid goods. Once, it has been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logically implied that provisions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 cannot be applied in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-1 form declaration that they have availed benefit of Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
