TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such under ARE 1s for export. The appellants, who had taken Cenvat credit on the yarn used in the manufacture of fabrics, could not utilise such credit. They claimed refund of such Cenvat amounts under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The original authority passed 5 separate orders on 5 such refund claims covering different periods, rejecting the claims on the ground that the export of goods had not been proved. The appeals filed against the orders-in-original were disposed of by the first appellate authority by a common order, whereby the refund claim in respect of which clearances of fabrics under ARE 1s for export were made by merchant-exporters was remanded to the original authority and the refund claim filed with reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim was denied. 3. Ld. Counsel submitted that it was not necessary that the goods for export should be cleared from the manufacturer s own premises, for the purpose of refund of Cenvat Credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Tribunal s decision in CCE v. UIC Wires Ltd. [2003 (158) E.L.T. 723 (Tri.-Kol.)]. Ld. Jt. CDR referred to Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002 and contended that Rule 5 required that export goods be removed from the factory of the manufacturer who claimed refund of CENVAT Credit under the Rule. Both sides also referred to the Central Excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and sub-rule (1) of Rules 57 AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides duly represented by Shri T.K. Kar, SDR for the Revenue and Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the respondents. We find that the fact of export of the goods from the recipient factory is not being disputed by the Revenue. They have also not said anything about the Tribunal s decision in the case of Orissa Synthetics Ltd. (supra) rendered under similar set of facts and circumstances. We also note that to the similar effect are the other decisions of the Tribunal as reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 461 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 988 (CEGAT-Mum) and 1999 (112) E.L.T. 653 (T) - 1999 (34) RLT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
