9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... staple fiber. The petitioner utilised the said duty paid inputs without availing the benefit of cenvat credit of the duty paid on the materials, as available under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The petitioners exported finished goods viz., yarn to various countries on payment of excise duty on yarn. For paying the excise duty on the goods exported, the petitioner utilises the credit of duty paid on the capital goods used in the manufacture of such yarn. 3.According to the petitioner, the Government of India has from time to time announced various schemes, enabling the manufacturers to export excisable goods manufactured by them without incurring the duty incidence, either on the inputs or on the finished goods. Thus, a manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of prescribed procedure from their factory. The petitioners filed three rebate claims dated 1.8.2012. The fourth respondent, by Order dated 29.10.2012, rejected all the three rebate claims, filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have taken and utilised cenvat credit and availed the benefit of higher rate of drawback and in terms of the Customs Notification No.68/2011-Cus (N.T), the claimant cannot avail both cenvat credit facility and higher rate of drawback simultaneously. 7.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent under Sec.35 of the Central Excise Act and the second respondent also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the fourth respondent. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the statutory scheme contained in the Act and Rules which express manifest intention of the Legislature which provide for granting of both kinds of rebates to the assessee. In Mazagaon Dock Ltd (supra), this aspect was explained in the following manner: "10. The word "or" in the clause would appear to be rather inappropriate as it is susceptible of the interpretation that when some profits are made but they are less than the normal profits, tax could only be imposed either on the one or on the other, and that accordingly a tax on the actual profits earned would bar the imposition of tax on profits which might have been intended, and the word "or" would have to be read in the context as meaning "and" Vide Maxwell's Interpretation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing one and the same, the benefits availed by the petitioners on the said goods, under different scheme, are required to be taken into account for ensuring that the sanction does not result in undue benefit to the claimant. The 'rebate' of duty paid on excisable goods exported and 'duty drawback' on export goods are governed by Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995. Both the rules are intended to give relief to the exporters by offsetting the duty paid. When the petitioners had availed duty drawback of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax on the exported goods, they are not entitled for the rebate under Rule 18 of the Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioners are covered under two different statutes one under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995 under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the other under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since the issue, involved in the present writ petition, is covered under two different statutes, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 17.As per the proviso to Rule 3 of the Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995, the petitioner is not entitled to claim both the rebates. 17.In these circumstances, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioners. I do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
