9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules or Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. Moreover, the applicant has claimed to have paid the drawback of duty amount along with interest to the Custom House, Kolkata and thereby it cannot be stated that double benefit will be available to the applicant in the event of grant of rebate of duty in respect of the inputs. The Government is convinced that the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error by rejecting the appeal of the applicant in accordance with para 7(e) of N/N. 68/2007 - revision application allowed. - F. No. 195/339/2014-RA-CX - Order No. 161/2018-CX - Dated:- 2-4-2018 - Shri Rajpal Sharma, Additional Secretary ORDER A Revision Application No. 195/339/14-RA-CX has been filed by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority on the ground that the applicant had availed benefit of drawback of duty under Notification No. 68/2007-Cus. (N.T.), dated 16-7-2007 and the rebate of duty in respect of inputs would amount to double benefit. The applicant s appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) has also been rejected once again vide above O-I-A and the applicant has filed the present Revision Application mainly on the ground that availment of drawback of Customs component is not a disqualification for claiming rebate of duty in respect of raw material under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and they have also remitted the drawback amount along with interest to the Customs Department. 3. Person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been made with regard to non-compliance of any condition stipulated in these legal provisions and even Government of India had examined this matter earlier and held that rebate of duty in respect of inputs used in the manufacturing of exported goods was admissible. After the said order of the Government of India the jurisdictional authorities were only to recheck whether the applicant had followed the procedure laid down in Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 and not to issue a fresh show cause notice on a different round. But instead of compliance of the Government s order, the Assistant Commissioner digressed from the main issue and rebate of duty was denied on entirely different ground of simultaneous availment of dra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
