9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are that the applicant M/s. Jaicorp Ltd., Mumbai, a manufacturer exporter filed six rebate claims under the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. l9/2004-C.E.(N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 on the basis of relevant documents/details. The rebate was sanctioned vide impugned order-in-original by the original authority for Rs. 7,49,164/-. However, the order-in-original was reviewed by the department and appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) against the above order-in-original on the ground that in one rebate claim in respect of ARE-1 No. 637, dated 12-12-2008 amounting to Rs. 71,507/-, the goods exported were wholly exempted from payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure, hence, an option is available to the manufacturer as regards to availment of said Notification. 4.2 The applicant submits that under Section 5A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it has been clarified as follows : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods. In other words, it has been clarified that if the goods are exempted absolutely then manufacturer is not allowed to pay Central Excise duty on such goods. 4.3 The applicant submits that reliance placed by the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of duty and filed six claims of Rs. 7,49,164/- which was initially sanctioned by the original authority vide impugned order-in-original. Department filed appeal in one rebate claim of Rs. 71,507/- pertaining to ARE-1 No. 637, dated 12-12-2008 on the ground that in that case, the goods were exempted wholly from payment of duty vide Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-7-2004, as the applicant had not availed Cenvat credit facility and payment made by the party cannot be considered as payment of Central Excise duty and hence, rebate cannot be sanctioned in such case. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned order-in-original. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8.&em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no bar on the applicant to pay duty under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E. (N.T.) since as per C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 845/03/06-CX (F. No. 267/01/06-CX.8), dated 1-2-2007 and 795/28/2004-CX, dated 28-7-2004, both the Notifications can be availed simultaneously. There is no dispute about export of said duty paid goods and compliance of all the conditions and procedure of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. 10. In view of above position, Government finds that rebate claim is admissible to the claimant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Therefore, Government sets aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allows the revision application. 11.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
