9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even any refund or drawback in respect of the concession rate of customs duty initially paid on the imported inputs - once the imported inputs have been re-exported, this would bring about a legal position as if the said goods had not been imported at all. Appellant also complied with all the provisions of the CIGCRDMEG Rules while effecting re-export of the impugned goods. Identical situation came up in the case of M/s. MRF Ltd. Versus Central Excise and Service Tax [2016 (3) TMI 439 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that in the Board's circular No.283/117/96 dated 31.12.1996 it has been clearly stated that the credit availed on inputs which are re-exported as such under Bond need not be reversed. Appeal allowed - decided in fav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt. 26.12.2008 confirmed the said amount and also imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Rule 15 ibid. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 19.10.2009 upheld the order of the original authority in totality. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri Joseph Prabhakar made oral submissions which can be summarized as under : (i) Substantial portion of the imported materials have been used in the manufacture of relays, however for certain reasons, balance materials could not be so used. (ii) Hence to comply with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased to be inputs amount equal to the credit availed has to be paid pack when cleared as such , as they are not entitled for the credit. He also placed reliance on the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai - 2007 (214) ELT 40 (Tri.-Chennai) 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. What is not in dispute is that the imported inputs which had not been used in the manufacture of Relays, for various reasons, have been re-exported. It is not the case that, pursuant to such re-export, appellants have claimed any drawback in respect of duties suffered on the re-exported product or, for that matter, any export benefit thereon. From the facts on record, we find that it appears that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in had similarly re-exported inputs which was found to be defective and unusable. The question that came up was whether the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to the credit availed on such inputs as per Rule 3(5) of the CCR 2004 as argued by the lower appellate authority and which has been relied upon by the Ld. A.R, The Tribunal held that as the inputs have been re-exported, the benefit of drawback for reexport is available under Section 74 and relying on the ratio of decision of Zydex Industries case also, cited by the ld. Advocate, demand of availment of cenvat credit was held as incorrect. We do note that these Tribunal decisions are Single Bench decisions. Nonetheless, they are directly on the issue. It is also confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
