9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is beneficial to him and the appellant herein has chosen to pay duty at the rate of 4% and claim rebate - denial of credit not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/297 to 303/2012 - 41393-41399/2018 - Dated:- 25-4-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. A. Shushma Harini, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that appellants are manufacturers of cotton yarn (not containing any other textile materials) falling under Chapter 52 of First Schedule to CETA, 1985 and are also duly registered with the Central Excise Department. They were paying duty @ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me was granted by the original authority. The department filed appeal against the said order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 29.10.2010 directed the appellant to repay the rebate sanctioned. Show cause notice was issued proposing to recover the erroneous sanctioned rebate along with interest. The appellant repaid the rebate under protest. Hence appeal No.E/297/2012 is against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) who directed to repay the sanctioned rebate along with interest. 3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Ms. A. Sushma Harini submitted that for the entire period cotton yarn attracted 4% of duty. Even as per the amendment, cotton yarn never remained an exempted product. The department has issued show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that cotton yarn was wholly exempted product for the said period, since duty was paid by the appellant, the credit availed is eligible as decided by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2008] 2008 taxmann.com 943 (Bombay). 5. In respect of appeal No. E/297/2012, the ld. counsel submitted that the original authority had correctly sanctioned the rebate claim as the appellant had paid duty on the exported cotton yarn. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously directed the appellant to repay the rebate sanctioned under the wrong impression that cotton yarn attracts nil rate of duty. 6. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
