9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh on merits - appeal disposed off by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/40080 - 40081/2014 - FINAL ORDER No.41461-41462/2016 - Dated:- 30-8-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri P.C. Anand, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR), For the Respondent Order Both the appeals are arising out of a common impugned order-in-appeal and therefore they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mainetti (I) Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein are the manufacturers of Plastic Hangers and exported them on payment of duty of ₹ 2,05,504/- in their Cenvat Credit and filed a rebate claim for the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 168/2010 dated 23.11.10, stated in para 1 that the respondent are engaged in the manufacturer of GPPS raw materials for plastic hangers and in para 3 mentioned that the claimpertains to the export of GPPS raw materials for plastic hangers and in OIO No. 169/2010 dated 23.11.10, stated in para 1 that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Hangers and in para 3 stated that the claim pertains to the export of plastic hangers. Further, he observed that both the OIOs are silent on the fact that only inputs had been cleared/stock transferred to their own SEZ unit at Tambaram and final products had been exported. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) elaborately discussed Rule 3 (4) Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2002. Since in the instant case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts). The documents appeared contra against the claims. Claiming of refund for removal of raw materials as such would fall under Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004 (or) under Rule 5 of Central Excise Rules for accumulated credit, instead the appellant claimed refund under Rule 18 of CER 2002 for claiming refund of duty paid on finished goods. Hence the appeals are liable for rejection or remanded for re-verification of the claim. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. The short issue involved in these appeals is whether sanctioning of rebate claims of the appellants on the inputs cleared as such to SEZ unit is legally correct or not. On perusal of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that he has discussed Rule 18 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
