Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (3) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nufacturing activity has been carried out by the applicants, they cannot claim the benefit of input stage rebate under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Government finds that since the applicant paid the duty on final product, they were required to file rebate claim under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.). But the applicant wrongly chose to file their rebate claim under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Procedure laid down in the said C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997 has not been followed, neither the goods were examined by the concerned Superintendent, Central Excise nor there are any identifiable marks/numbers on the goods to correlate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... permanent way work at railway siding at Reliance SEZ, with Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., who are the developers of the SEZ. For the purpose of the execution of the said contract the Appellant purchased certain items on payment of Central Excise duty and brought the said purchased items in their factory at Kota and cleared to Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd. under cover of ARE-1. After scrutiny of the said claim filed by the exporter, a show cause notice was issued to them calling upon them to explain as to why the refund claim amounting to ₹ 2,15,459/- should not be rejected on the grounds that in the instant case no manufacturing/processing activity was carried out on the goods purchased by the applicant which is the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s possible to correlate the goods and their duty paid character. The appeal has been rejected mainly on the ground that the general permission was not placed before him by the applicant. Further it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) have failed to consider the special procedure prescribed for export of Tea under claim of rebate published on page No. 6.9, Part-IV of C.B.E. C s Manual Chapter 8 published in Central Excise Manual, 2010-11 - 51st edition of R.K. Jain, wherein it is clearly provided that procurement of goods from factory of manufacture and from open market is also allowed under Notification No. 21/2002. The department is fully aware of the said circulars of the Board but the Commissioner has failed to follow the said .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 6-4-2004. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the applicant. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that the rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004 is admissible on the duty paid on excisable goods used in manufacture or processing of export goods. In the instant case, the applicant paid the duty on final product which was supplied to the SEZ and not on inputs used in manufacture of such final product. Since, no manufacturing activity has been carried out by the applicants, they cannot claim the benefit of input stage rebate under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Government finds that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of a manufacture and from open market is also allowed under the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. The applicant contended that the said special provision for tea is applicable for this case also. Government finds that the said special provision has been provided with a specific intention to extend benefit rebate to export of tea only subject to compliance of certain conditions and not to any other products. Hence, this special procedure cannot be extended to any product other than tea. There are catena of judgments that meaning of any statute should be construed strictly accordingly to their grounds. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) and M/s. Paper Products Lt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates