9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme but also goods/inputs procured on payment of excise duty/additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty on which it availed CENVAT Credit to manufacture goods exported - There is no discussion in the impugned orders of the 1st, 2ndrespondent and the 3rd respondent as to under which customs notification the goods were imported by the petitioner under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The petitioner has used goods/inputs procured on payment of Central Excise duty and Additional Duty of Customs equivalent to Central Excise Duty along with goods imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme to manufacture of export goods to claim rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the finished goods exported from the Coimbatore unit of the petitioner - Normally, only after export obligation undertaken/specified in the Advance Authorisation is discharged, a manufacturer would be entitled to either sell the manufactured goods in the domestic tariff area i.e in the domestic market on payment of excise duty or export them and claim rebate of excise duty paid on such goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. The petitioner filed 6 rebate claims between January 2008 and March 2008 for the goods exported by it between November 2007 and January 2008 for a total sum of ₹ 22,45,748/-. 7. The 1st respondent partially sanctioned the rebate claims for a sum of ₹ 14,48,817/- by way of re-credit into the CENVAT Account of the petitioner's. The 1st respondent rejected the rebate claims to an extent of ₹ 8,00,931/-on the ground that the description of the export goods in the export invoices were invariance within the description in Form ARE-1's and hence the petitioner was not entitled to rebate to that extent. 8. Aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent as detailed in the above chart, the petitioner had filed appeals before the 2nd respondent. In these appeals, the appellant relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the tribunal rented Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2006 (202) ELT 199 wherein cash refund was allowed following certain other decisions of the Tribunals. Since the 2nd respondent affirmed the orders of the 1st respondent, therefore revision applications were filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corelate the goods those document like Shipping Bill/Bill of lading/Commercial invoice etc, to establish that the some goods have been exported by way of matching of description of goods etc. 9. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to do so. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already passed a very detailed and judicious order and Government finds no reason whatsoever to interfere in these orders and hence uphold them. 10. Revision application is rejecting being devoid of merit. '' 10. Challenging the impugned Order, the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and therefore denial of rebate claim to an extent of ₹ 8,00,931/- was also justified. It is submitted that there is no basis to sanction the rebate claim by way of credit into the CENVAT account contrary to the mandate of the law as per the notifications which are applicable to the petitioner. 11. It is submitted that the variation in the description found in the shipping bills are only a minor clerical error and should not come in way of grant of substantive export incentive in the form of rebate of excise during under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. It is further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assembly". In some of the export invoice, shipping bill and the commercial invoice, the petitioner has however described the export product as"SG/Ductile Iron Machine Casting for Pipe Fitting" which according to the petitioner was typographical mistake . 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 17. From a perusal of the records, it is noticed that the petitioner had imported goods under Advance Authorisation Scheme under the relevant Foreign Trade Policy. 18. Goods imported under Advance Authorisation Schemes are exempted are from payment of customs duty, additional customs duty, education cess, anti-dumping duty and safeguard duty et cetera. An importer has to 1st discharge export obligation undertaken under the Advance Authorisation by exporting finished goods out of the country. Had the petitioner used only duty paid goods in the manufacture of export goods the petitioner would have been entailed rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 19. In the present case, however the petitioner has utilized not only goods/inputs imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme but also goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
