9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Thereafter, revision has been filed in Government. The Government has also found no justification in the claim of the rebate. 2. Shri Harin P. Rawal, learned Counsel for the Department has brought to our notice some of the facts in the form of admissions by the petitioners, which reads as under: In Para-A2, the petitioners in their letter dated 7-9-2002 averred that: "The description as "mad-ups" in the export documents was only to claim the DEPB applicable to the exported products. The processed fabrics manufactured by the mills were only cut and packed into scarves (2100 dozen) and exported by us. In this regard we are enclosing herewith the excise invoice. AR-4. shipping bill and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also find that the size of I piece is 1.10 x 1.10 which is for "SCARF". Thus, I find that the export product is Scarf classified under Chapter 62 of CETA, 1985 for which raw material is MMF(P) classified under Chapter 54, in the instant case duty has been discharged by the manufacturer on MMF(P) falling under Ch. 54. It is also noted that raw material MMF(P) is first cut with the help of machines into required length and then stitched into scarves through machines. After inspection of quality, the scarves are packed in export packing for export. No duty has been paid on the export goods i.e. Scarf falling under Ch. 62. In view of the above, it is found that it is a case of payment of duty on excisable materials i.e.MMF(P) used in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the made ups are manufactured from the processed MMF which were removed by M/s. Shree Laxmi Narayan Synthetics, Surat under the cover of Invoice No. 00155 dated 7-6-2001 as the certificate on AR-4 has not been signed by M/s. Shree Laxmi Narayan Synthetics, Surat. I find that this is a case of rebate of duty on excisable materials the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 41 /2001-C.E.(N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 is to be followed and complied with. Here in this case of rebate claim the claimant has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 41/2001. The claim is therefore liable for rejection more so when description of the exported goods are "Dyed made ups" made from 100 % polyester filament yam chiffon dyed 1.10 x 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olicy. (c) Manufactured and/or exported by a unit licensed as hundred per cent export oriented unit in terms of the provisions of the relevant import and export policy. (d) Manufactured and/or exported by any of the units situated in Free Trade Zones/Export Processing/Zones/Special Economic Zones/EHTP Scheme. (e) Manufactured and/or exported in terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (f) Manufactured and/or exported in terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 8. From the above it is clear that DEPB benefit and Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be allowed simultaneously. This restriction is kept because reimbursement of duty incidence cannot be allowed twice, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
