9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is registered with Central Excise for the manufacturing of Screw conveyor parts. The applicant has submitted claims for rebate of Central Excise duty for the goods cleared for export through merchant exporter M/s. Ashoka Technologies on payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The merchant exporter M/s. Ashoka Technologies had given a certificate confirming that they have no objection if the rebate claims are sanctioned to the manufacturer M/s. Ashoka Machine Tools Corporation the Original authority observed that the duty liability was initially borne by the applicant, but later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogies, towards their running business with the applicant were to an extent that such amount of excise duty in actual was not charged by the applicant from the merchant exporter M/s. Ashoka Technologies. 4.3 The applicant on their part had not only paid the element of excise duty towards the goods exported, but in addition to that, were also burdened further with duty amount for which they gave the credit to M/s. Ashoka Technologies. 4.4 Although the M/s. Ashoka Technologies made the payment to the applicant on the price indicated in the invoices, which was inclusive of excise duty and yet towards the element of excise duty, they had already been paid the credit by the applicant. Therefore, there was no burden on the part of the M/s. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Duty having been charged by them to M/s. Ashoka Technologies and thereby totally overlooked the fact that the payment actual made to the applicant by M/s. Ashoka Technologies was in fact excluding the quantum of excise duty for which the rebate claim has been filed by the applicant and which are in dispute. The theory of unjust enrichment provided under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to the present case and the Commissioner has erred in doing so. 6. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 22-6-2011, 26-7-2011 23-8-2011. Shri Naveen Malik, advocate attended hearing on 28-8-2011 on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Applications. Nobody attended Personal Hearings on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by ACCE/DCCE, instead of being credited to the fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to - (a) Rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) From above, it is clear that rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods is not hit by unjust enrichment clause. Moreover applicant has claimed to have given credit of duty paid amount to the merchant exporter and the said practice was in vogue earlier also during 2007-08 and department has been sanctioning the rebate claims without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
