9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARE 1 as required under Notification No. 42/2001- CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, it was held that goods manufactured by the appellant were not exempted as there was an effective rate of duty i.e. 4% without availing CENVAT Credit and 16% with CENVAT Credit in terms of Serial No. 28 and 34 of Notification No. 10/2002 dated 01.03.2002. Irrespective of any procedural lapse once it is undisputed that the goods have been exported, in such case if any duty has been paid the same is liable to be refunded as rebate of duty in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and if the goods have been cleared without payment of duty then no duty can be demanded once it is established that the goods have been exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms and classified Spoons, Forks, Ladles, Skimmers, Cake-Servers, Fish Knives, Butter Knives, Sugar tongs and similar Kitchen or table ware under Chapter Heading 8215 and other table/kitchen or other household articles and parts thereof under Chapter Heading 7323.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The goods manufactured by the Appellant which were covered under Notification No. 10/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 chargeable to duty @ 4% ad valorem provided a condition that the CENVAT credit of duty paid on input had not been taken. In case, a manufacturer avails CENVAT credit, the goods were chargeable to duty @ Tariff rate 16%. A manufacturer was entitled to get benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 or 8/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d even though the manufactured goods were chargeable to duty. 2.1. He submits that it is settled law that the duty should not be demanded on the exported goods on the procedural lapse like goods exported without bond or LUT or non-observation of specific procedure. It is held that benefit of export should be extended if it is undisputed fact that the goods have been exported. He placed reliance on the following Judgments : (a) Well Known Polysters Ltd Vs C.C.Ex - 2011 (267) ELT 221 (T); (b) Alpha Garments Vs C.C.Ex 1996 (86) ELT 600 (T); (c) Eve Fashions Vs C.Ex - 2006 (205) ELT 619 (T); 2.2. He further submits that the issue is covered by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/10810/2015 dated 17.06.2015 in the appellant s own cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o quash and set aside the impugned order with consequential reliefs. 3. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute in the fact that the goods on which the excise duty was demanded have been admittedly exported, only on the premise that the goods were exported without cover of bond or letter of undertaking and ARE 1 as required under Notification No. 42/2001- CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, it was held that goods manufactured by the appellant were not exempted as there was an effective rate of duty i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacture of Kitchen Items and exported 100% of the manufactured items. The Adjudicating authority disallowed the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the inputs were used in the exempted final product. Further, the final product was cleared without furnishing bond. We find that the issue is no more res integra in view of the various decisions of Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal; as under:- 1) Repro India Ltd Vs Union of India 2009 (235) ELT 614 (Bom.) II) CCE Vs Drish Shoes Ltd 2010 (254) ELT 417 (H.P.) iii) Well Known Polyesters Ltd Vs CCE Vapi 2011 (267) ELT 221 (Tri-Ahmd) iv) Jyoti Capsules Vs CCE Kanpur 2009 (236), ELT 667 (Tri-Del) 3. In the case of Drish Shoes Ltd (supra), the question before the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rores to that extent the appellant is not liable to pay duty under SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2002. 4.4. As regards limitation we find that as the appellant have cleared the goods for export whereby they have filed all the necessary documents such as export invoices which were endorsed by the Central Excise officers for the stuffing supervision, bill of lading, shipping bills, bank religion certificate etc. The appellant have also declared export clearance in their Central Excise returns. With this detailed disclosure before the department, it cannot be said that there is suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the show cause notice issued on 18.05.2007 for the period 01.06.2002 to 28.02.2003 is clearly time barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
