TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E COURT OF INDIA] and in the case of M/s. Paper Products v. CCE – [ 1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] that plain and simple meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to - The amendment made in Not. No. 93/2004-Cus. cannot be said to be applicable to Not. No. 94/2004-Cus – Revision application rejected – Decided against the Assessee. - F. No. 195/22-23/2011-RA-CX - 774-775/2012-CX - Dated:- 17-7-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri Pradeep Jain, AR, for the Assessee. ORDER These revision applications are filed by M/s. Alcobex Metals Ltd. (against the order-in-appeal Nos. 327-328(CB)CE/JPR-II/10, dated 13-9-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Jaipur-II with respect to order-in-original Nos. 343-344/2008-R both dated 11-6-2008 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent are engaged in the manufacture of non ferrous rods, tubings, pipes etc. falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 74112200 and 74082990 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have filed claims of rebate of Central Excise duty in respect of goods exported vide respective ARE-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005, the value for the purpose of export shall be the transaction value and should conform to Section 4 or Section 4A as the case may be of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This is also in accordance with Order Nos. 589-593, dated 29-11-2005 in case of M/s. National Tools (Exports), Jodhpur and Order Nos. 536-582/2005, dated 24-11-2005 in case of M/s. Banswara Syntex Ltd., Banswara issued by the Government of India. 4. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who allowed the same and set aside the impugned order-in-original. 5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds :- 5.1 The applicant submits that the Not. No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 and Not. No. 94/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 have been issued simultaneously. The Notification 93/2004-Cus. is issued first for advance license or advance authorization. This means that this will be the basic notification governing any type of advance authorization. The Notification 94/2004-Cus. is issued for the advance authorization fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was submitted in the memorandum of cross-objections and the written submissions but it has not been considered while passing the impugned order, rather, this aspect has not been touched by saying that the rebate is not allowed on the merits, so there is no need to discuss this. But, the adjudicating authority is required to analyse and discuss all the submissions and he cannot relieve himself by saying that the merits of the case are not in their favour. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 27-6-2012 was attended by Shri Pradeep Jain, authorized representative on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that in this case exports have been made under advance authorization for annual requirement in terms of Notification No. 94/2004-Cus., dated 19-4-2004 and claimed rebate of duty paid on exported goods. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise sanctioned the claims but department after the due process of review proceedings under Section 35E of Central Excis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t products . [MF (DR) Corrigendum F.No. 605/50/2005-DBK] The said corrigendum makes it clear that the restriction imposed in the condition (v) is regarding rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of resultant product and not in the duty paid finished product. 9.3 The Government has already held in the case of M/s. Shubhada Polymers Product Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2009 (237) E.L.T. 623 (G.O.I.) that rebate claim of duty paid on finished goods exported in terms of Not. No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004 as amended vide corrigendum dated 17-5-2005 F. No. 605/50/2005-DBK is admissible to the exporter. 9.4 In the instant case, goods are exported under advance authorization for annual requirement scheme in terms of Not. No. 94/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. The condition No. 8 of said notification stipulates as under :- 8. That export obligation is discharged within the period as specified in the or within such extended period as may be granted by the Licensing Authority by exporting the resultant product manufactured in India and in respect of which facility under rule 18 or 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed. 10. Government notes that abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
