Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 563 - AT - Central ExciseRebate claim - supplies made to a unit in a ‘special economic zone’ between July 2008 and August 2008 - denial of the claim for rebate on the ground that the activity does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, not being liable to duties of excise at the time of removal from the factory, could not seek rebate - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in its decision SAIL BANSAL SERVICE CENTRE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RANCHI [2007 (7) TMI 512 - CESTAT, KOLKATA], held that once the payment of duty has been accepted, there is no scope for denial of credit pertaining to inputs, input services or capital goods to the manufacturer. It is also seen that the activity of the manufacturer was once deemed to be excisable but had been withdrawn subsequently on 2nd March 2005. It is also noted that the appellant cleared the goods against form ARE-I which was required to be certified by the jurisdictional central excise authorities. There is no allegation that these processes was not complied with; indeed, receipt of the goods in special economic zone are also required to be certified so by endorsement in ARE-I. The appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and, in these circumstances, could certainly have entertained the bonafide belief that their activity did amount to manufacture and, hence, not barred from discharge of duty liability on clearances to special economic zone against which rebate, under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2001, was sought. Matter remanded back to the original authority to decide on eligibility for rebate after taking into consideration our decision that the activity itself amounts to manufacture - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|