9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D4248DXM, for the manufacture of excisable goods viz., terry towels falling under Chapter 63 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing facilities of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The assessee is also engaged in the export of terry towels. 2.2That M/s. Kottage India, New Delhi (the merchant exporter), have exported the terry towels under the claim of rebate under the provisions of rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from the factory premises of the applicant under ARE-Is No. 2 dt. 30-5-2003, and 3-6-2003, respectively duly signed by the assessee and merchant exporter with the suitable remarks on the said ARE-ls, that the rebate amount will be claimed by the manufacturer in the Col. No. 12 of the said ARE-ls, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the documents by mentioning clearly on all the documents that he is availing the Cenvat. (ii) That the applicant cleared the goods through the merchant exporter. Accordingly all the documents were prepared by the said merchant exporter and exported from the Mumbai Port. The applicant was given to undersigned that the goods will be exported by claiming the DEPB and, therefore, the applicant declared in the ARE-1's that the Cenvat is availed and no drawback will be claimed. However, subsequently after some time the applicant came to know that the said merchant exporter, have claim the drawback in respect of these two consignments. The applicant immediately reversed the credit availed on the cotton yarn and other inputs which were conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k by the merchant-exporter. In view of above the applicant requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5.The case was heard on 8-11-2005, and Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated contents of their Revision Application. 6.1.Govt., has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions Govt., has also gone perused Order-in-Original and the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6.2.Govt., notes it is admitted fact that the applicants have cleared the goods terry towels on payment of Central Excise duty vide ARE-l's No. 1/30/5/2003, and 2/3-6-2003, for export and the impugned goods has actually been exported by the merchant-exporter M/s. Kottage India, New Delhi. The applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drawback rules but the merchant-exporter has claimed and obtained drawback. No doubt both manufacturer and the merchant-exporter has given declaration on the relevant AR4s, that no duty drawback, under Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995 has been claimed thereby contravention of duties drawback rules has taken place. Therefore, action against defaulter could have been taken under the Customs Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995, r/w Customs Act, 1962, as provided. But this cannot be ground for denial of rebate to the applicants. 7.In view of above facts and circumstances Govt. is of the considered opinion that that the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not maintainable. Govt., accordingly sets aside the impugned Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
