9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (M/s Avirat Engineering Co. Rajkot) through thirteen parties at Bombay during September 1988 to December, 1988. The claims were made under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules. Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order-in-appeal has held that the said Rule 12 does not permit grant of rebate of duty paid on raw materials used in the manufacture of final products exported. 2. Shri Paresh V. Sheth was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued that since the definition included excisable goods also used in the manufacture of the goods which are exported, it entitled him to rebate even in respect of inputs i.e. forgings in this case. 3. Government does not agree with this view for the simple reason that the said judgment dealt only with the export of goods and the duty liability thereon while under one rule (Rule 12) the duty is f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r rule 12 is invoked. It may also be mentioned here that it is Rule 12-A that talks of rebate of duty of excisable material used in the manufacture of goods which are exported. If the learned Advocate's view is to be accepted then this Rule (12A) will become redundant. 4. In view of the above discussions and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Steel Rolling Mills of Bengal [1984 (16) E.L.T. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
