TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... awn wire, in terms of amendment - sum paid by the units during intervening period 29-5-2003 to 8-7-2004 shall be treated as duty. Once such payment is treated as duty, the rebate claims on duty paid on final product can not be denied in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Once such payment is treated as duty and availment of Cenvat credit has been allowed against payment of such duty, payment of duty against cenvat credit is entitle for rebate claim. As such the applicants are entitled for rebate claim on said exported goods (finished products). The rebate on the exported goods may be sanctioned after adjusting the already paid input rebate amount - Revision Application succeeds - F. No. 195/285/2008-RA - 866/2011-CX - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were again taken up for fresh consideration and an amount of Rs. 35,82,452/- involved on inputs/materials used in the manufacture of export goods was sanctioned through the different Orders-in-Original. However, the assessee preferred appeal against the OIA dated 19-4-2004 with Govt. of India who vide his Order No. 424-435/04 dated 27-12-2004 rejected the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved of the order of Govt. of India dated 27-12-2004, the assessee filed twelve (12) D.B. Civil writ petition in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur mainly contending therein that Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules has been retrospectively amended to declare wire drawing units as manufacturer for the period from 29-5-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty paid on the inputs in the manufacture of Final Products. Further it may also be submitted that it is an established law now that even if the export goods are non-excisable goods and in case the duty was paid by the Exporters, the said amount of duty paid by the Exporter is liable to be refunded to them. It has been so held by the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) in the case of Commissioner v. Sun City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. - Reported in 2007 (218) E.L.T. 174 (Rajasthan High Court). 4.2 In order to appreciate the submissions being made hereunder it would be important to have a look at the content of amendment made in Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 as also on the contents of the Board s Circular No. 831/8/06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as stated above and the Board s Circular dated 26-7-2006 also stated above would show that the purpose of the amendment made to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was to regularize (i) credit taken at he inputs stage (on wire-rod), (ii) credit taken by the downstream user of drawn wire and (iii) the amount paid as central Excise duty on clearance of drawn wire. In other words, wire drawing units, which had paid a sum equal to duty leviable on drawn wire, would be eligible to avail the credit of duty paid on inputs and utilize the same for payment of duty on drawn wire for the period of amendment. The sum paid by the wire drawing units in such cases will be treated as duty. 4.4 The sum paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uled in this case on 20-10-2010 and 8-4-2011 was attended by Shri R.K Sharma, Advocate and Shri Dharmendra Singh, consultant on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the original authority had rejected the rebate claims of the applicant vide Orders-in-Original Nos. 406-415/2003-04 (Refd.) all dated 30-1-2004 on the ground that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Techno Weld Industries had held that re-drawing of wire rods does not amount to manufacture and as such no duty was payable on steel wires. The said orders were challenged b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endment in the budget 2004, note 10 was inserted in section XV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to declare the said process amounting to manufacture. The said section Note was made effective from 9-7-2004 and it did not resolve the problem for the earlier period. However, in order to solve problem of intervening period from 29-5-2003 to 8-7-2004, Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was amended retrospectively. By virtue of first proviso inserted vide The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 No. 29 of 2006 (13th July 2006), the wire drawing Unit which had cleared the goods during the period from 29-5-2003 to 8-7-2004 on payment of an amount equal to the duty at the rate applicable to drawn wire on the date of removal were treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
