9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Nylon Filament yarn for use in fishnet business, Fishnet twine and Nylon compounded chips. The appellant had filed one rebate claim for Rs. 34,136/85 relating to ARE-2 for the raw materials viz. nylon filament used in the manufacture of final product viz., nylon fishnet twine exported which is exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 30/2004 C.E., dated 9-7-2004 as amended. The appellant claimed rebate of excise duty suffered at raw material stage viz. nylon yarn used in the exported finished product viz. Nylon Filament Twine which is exempted. The appellant already informed the department about the export of the impugned product and they were orally asked to proceed with the export. The total quantity of the impugned product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tructions relate to Export under claim for rebate of duty on excisable material used in the manufacture of export goods. (3) that they did not avail credit of the duty paid on yarn, in the circumstances the question of ineligible credit does not arise. (4) that unjust enrichment not applicable for rebate of duty paid on goods exported of excisable material used in the manufacture of export goods. (5) that M/s. SRF paid duty on the nylon yarn manufactured by them and collected the same from the appellant and thus the fact remain that central excise duty remains collected from the appellant and as such they have borne the incidence of duty. (6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is not legally correct and in as such as the Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules allows rebate on duty paid on raw materials which have been used in the finished product exported subsequently or the duty paid on the goods exported. He has also drawn my attention to Para 1.2 on Part (v) of C.B.E. & C.'s supplementary manual. He has further cited case laws according to which the substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied by alleging procedural lapse. Further, regarding the finding of the LAA that the duty was not borne by the appellant, it was submitted that they have borne the incidence of duty and credit note was issued by SRF Polymer on SRF Ltd. and SRF issued debit note on the appellant. 5. I have carefully gone through the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this fact. 5.2 The appellant manufactured twines out of the duty paid yarn and exported them without availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on yarn as the finished product namely Filament Yarn are exempt from Central Excise Duty as per Notification No. 13/2007 C.E., dated 1-3-2007. The LAA's findings that the appellant has to prove that he had borne the incidence of duty and not passed on the same to any other persons is misplaced. In terms of clause (a) to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 the provisions of unjust enrichment are not applicable to the instant case as the issue relates to "Rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical breaches. In Suksha International v. UOI, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In the Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observation was made by the Apex Court in the Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
