TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch the contention of applicant for grant of rebate claim of such duty is not acceptable. Government finds support from the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. CCE reported as [2004 (9) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], and M/s. Paper Products v. CCE reported as [1999 (8) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that the simple and plain meaning of the wordings of statute are to be strictly adhered to - rebate claims have been rightly held inadmissible to the applicant by the Commissioner (Appeals). Government do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same - Decided against assessee. - F. Nos. 195/1217-1218/2011-RA - Order Nos. 84-85/2014-CX - Dated:- 18-3-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Prabhakar Shetty, Advocate, for the Assessee. Shri S.K. Gupta, Inspector Central Excise, for the Department. ORDER These revision applications are filed by M/s. Positive Packing Industries Ltd., Khopoli against the Orders-in-Appeal No. YDB/401-404/RGD/ 2010, dated 20-7-2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-II with respect to Order-in-Original No. KPL/RC/15/08-09, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 336, dated 17-1-2008 by Asstt. Development Commissioner in respect of Debonding of EOU Unit. (iv) Copy of No Dues Certificate dated 21-2-2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, C. Excise, Khopoli Division, Raigad from file No. VIII/Cus/36/Enpac/KPL/03/P-III. (v) Copy of Final Debonding Order dated 11th March, 2008 issued by Development Commissioner vide his office File No. SEEPZ-SEZ/EOU/25/03-04/Vol-II. (vi) Copy of letter dated 19-2-2008 submitted by PPIL-EOU to the Range Superintendent informing therein the intention of exporting the finished goods whose stock was ascertained as at 13-2-2008 and in respect of which duty was paid vide TR6 Challans and claiming refund of duty so paid. (vii) Copies of the following documents in respect of the ARE-1 Nos. mentioned in the worksheet described at (i) above : (a) ARE-1 duly endorsed by Custom Officer confirming the exportation of goods mentioned therein. (b) Central Excise Invoice issued by M/s. PPIL-EOU at the time of clearance of goods from the factory, (c) EP Copy of Shipping Bill. (d) Mate Receipt. (e) Bill of Lading. (f) Customs Invoice. (g) Packing lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) of Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a common order for both the refund claims mainly on the ground that the customs duty paid on the debonding of EOU is not refundable on subsequent export of the said goods. There is no finding as regards the excise duties paid under Head of Account and Major Head 038- Union Excise Duties which is evident from the TR-6 Challans under which duties were paid. Therefore the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is a non-speaking order casually passed without appreciating the facts and legal position on record and non-application of mind too. It is settled law by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant v. Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax [2008 (232) E.L.T. 780 (HC-Bom.) = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 11 (Bom.)] that delay and unreasoned judgments violate the basic rules or natural justice. Similar view was held by Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. [2010 (252) E.L.T. 330 (HC-Bom) = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 686 (Bom.)] and therefore order of Commissioner (Appeals) is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 The Hon ble Commissioner (Appeals) in his order (second last p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of de-bonding and the goods exported. However Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Revenue s appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a totally new ground in his findings that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the authority to sanction the refund of Customs duty. Applicant submits that it is the order-in-original at Para 5 clearly recorded the basic facts co-relating the export of duty paid goods along with the export documents. 4.6 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his findings (second last para of the order) in holding that as exporter of Customs duty paid goods , the duty paid by the EOU may have been eligible for drawback under Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 . Applicant submit that the duty drawback under Section 75 of Customs Act covers only the refund of duty paid on inputs used for production of goods which are exported or the refund of Customs duty paid on the imported goods subject to certain conditions. However, in the instant case the refund was pertaining to duty paid on finished goods (not on inputs) manufactured in India by the Applicant in their EOU unit. 4.7 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght time for clarifying the contentions of department. The applicant vide letter dated 12-8-2013 clarified as under : 5.1 During the course of the hearing the representative of department showed the order passed by your Honour, Order No. 632-637/12/-CX, dated 11-6-2011 covering the two order-in-appeals as follows : Sl No. RA Application No. Against OIA No/date O-I-O No./date 1. 195/1217-1218/11-RA-CX YDB/401-404/RGD/10, dated 20-7-2010 Raigad/KPL/RC/15/2008-09, 16-3-2009-Rs. 11.50 Lacs 2 195/1217-1218/11-RA-CX YDB/401-404/RGD/10, dated 20-7-2010 Raigad/KPL/RC/16/2008-09, 16-3-2009-Rs. 12.38 Lacs 3 195/789-792/10-RA-CX YDB/401-404/RGD/10, dated 20-7-2010 Raigad/KPL/RC/1000/2008-dated 23-4-2009-Rs. 8626/- 4 195/789-792/10-RA-CX YDB/401-404/RGD/10, dated 20-7-2010 Raigad/KPL/RC/1001/2008-dated 16-4-2009-Rs. 2250/- 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore request to grant us time to another date to prove that there were no duplication of application against the same order-in-appeal. Accordingly we have now checked up all the records and re-confirm that the said two applications (No. 195/1217-1218/11-RA-CX) were not heard any time earlier as the applications were filed only subsequent order of CESTAT. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records/oral written submissions and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. In view of position explained in Para (5) above Government notes that no revision application was filed earlier with reference to OIO No. 15 16/2008-09 both dated 16-3-2009/OIA No. 401-404/10, dated 20-7-2010 and GOI Revision Order No. 632-637/12-CX, dated 11-6-2012 does not relate to the instant Revision Application No. 195/1217-1218/11. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay which is taken up first for decision. Applicant had filed appeal against OIA No. 401-404/10, dated 20-7-2010 received on 28-7-2010 relating to OIO Nos. 15 16/08-09, dated 16-3-2009, before CESTAT on 17-9-2010. Hon ble CESTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est so to do, hereby; (a) Exempts all excisable goods produced or manufactured in an export oriented undertaking from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and additional duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and additional duty of excise leviable thereon under Section 3 of additional Duty of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978) : Provided that the exemption contained in this Notification in respect of duty of excise leviable under Section 3 of said Central Excise Act shall not apply to such goods if brought to any other place in India; 8.3 Sub-section (1A) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stipulates as follows :- (1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods. 8.4 The Notification No. 24/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
