TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods manufactured by respondent nor a case of clearance of inputs as such for export on reversal of equal Cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the excisable goods are not exported on payment of duty the rebate claim was rightly held inadmissible by the original authority. Goods exported are not inputs used in the manufacturing of exported goods. In this case the imported goods have been re-exported - Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing rebate in this case - Decided in favour of Revenue. - F. No. 198/656/2011-RA - Order No. 28/2014-CX - Dated:- 20-2-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri W.V. Jacob, for the Department. None, for the Respondent. ORDER This revision applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Order-in-Original rejecting the claim. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who decided the case in favour of respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The assessee is not eligible to claim rebate of CVD paid on goods at the time of export inasmuch as the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 vide explanation 1 to the said notification lays down that CVD paid on goods imported cannot be termed as duty of excise co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proportionate credit of Customs duty paid on goods imported. The assessee had exported the goods as such without undertaking any manufacturing activity and claimed rebate of customs duty suffered. 4.4 The case law quoted by the Commissioner (Appeals) viz., Hyderabad Industries Ltd v. UOI [1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)], wherein Hon ble Supreme Court had observed that Section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act specifically mandates that the CVD will be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and manufacturer of final product is entitled to Cenvat credit of this Additional duty leviable under Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act paid on any inputs received in the factory and that the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 8. The original authority rejected the rebate claim on the ground that imported goods have been exported as such without undertaking any manufacturing process and such exported goods cannot be treated as export of excisable goods and no excise duty was paid and CVD paid on imported goods cannot be rebated. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of respondent. Now the applicant department has filed this revision application on the grounds stated in para (4) above. 9. Government notes that the goods in question Styrene Monomer exported vide ARE-1 No. 26/21-11-2007 was not manufactured by the respondent party but the same had been procured from M/s Karnataka Chemic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
