TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch was valid during the period of export and there is no dispute about the actual export of the goods Therefore, respondents were eligible for input stage rebate claim subject to fulfilment of condition mentioned - Following decision of IN RE: AV INDUSTRIES [2010 (9) TMI 762 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE] - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. No. 195/565/13-RA - 365/14-cx - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - Smt. Archana Pandey Tiwari, Joint Secretary ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Honda Cars India Limited, Saket New Delhi against the Order-in-Appeal No. 08/CE/APP/LTU/2012 dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), LTU, New Delhi with respect to Order in Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner, LTU, New Delhi 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed a declaration on 24.09.2010 under Notification No. 21/2004CE (NT),dated 06.09.2004 for export under claim of rebate for duty on excisable material used in manufacture or processing of export goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,-2002 for the goods exported on payment or Central Excise duty. The applicant also confirmed vide their letter dated 24.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order in appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 It is submitted that the first portion of the Section 2(f)(iii) deems the activity of packing or repacking of goods in a unit container as amounting to manufacture. Similarly, the second portion of Section 2(f) (iii) deems the activity of labelling of containers as amounting to manufacture. Therefore, expressly, the activity of packing or re-packing of goods in a unit container and labelling-of containers amounts to manufacture'. Reliance is placed by the applicant on the judgment CCE Bombay vs. SD Fine Chemicals- 1995 (77) ELT 49 (SC) wherein it was held that the term manufacture as defined under the Excise Act, had an expansive definition and include certain processes which may not strictly amount to manufacture. 4.2 The applicant receives an export order from a party located abroad. The said export order gives out all the information about the products that have to be exported, such as l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Line. Each cardboard box is placed in a bigger box which can hold all the boxes containing the desired no. of components. Subsequently, the outer bigger box is closed and an identification label is affixed on the outer bigger box. The identification label affixed on the outer box contains information which depicts and corresponds to the information given in the label affixed on the inner box. In certain cases, the applicant undertakes direct packing wherein the separators are placed directly into the packing boxes and are packed for shipment. 4.3 The applicant submits that the processes of packing and labeling undertaken by the applicant render the product marketable to its buyer abroad by .way of safety during transit and guidance during assembly. Reliance is placed by the applicant on the judgement of the hon ble Supreme court in the matter of Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. us. CCE Jaipur-2011 (271) ELT 321 (SC) wherein it was held that repacking of helium gas from bulk packs to smaller cylinders, rendering of certain testing processes on the said smaller gas containers to determine the quality and grade of gas and attachment of certificate indicating quality of the gas, wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Rules, 2002 provides the rebate of duty paid on the materials used for the manufacture of the export product. Rule 18 ibid also provides rebate of Central Excise duty paid on the export goods. Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 expressly provides the removal of the materials without payment of duty under bond for use in the manufacture of the export goods. Rule 19(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides the removal of export goods under bond without payment of duty. It is thus seen from the said above circular dated 13.10.1999 that a wider connotation has been attributed to the term 'manufacture' for the purposes of rebate Claims. Therefore in the light of the first portion of the Section 2(f)(iii) of the Excise Act that deems the activity of packing and re-packing as amounting to manufacture, read along with the said Circular, the activity undertaken by the Company' clearly falls within the ambit of Section 2(f) (iii) and therefore the said activity amounts to a process of manufacture. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant has undertaken processing of the goods that are exported. They are thus entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2004-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that neither Section 2(f) (iii) nor the Third Schedule mention that goods contained therein are meant for retail sale. Reliance is placed on Gillette India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Cents' Excise, (Jaipur - 2006 (193) ELT 331 (Tri- Del) wherein it was held that export goods are not subject to MRP Based assessment. It is further submitted that Notification 14/2008 dated 1.03.2008 pertains to goods for MRP Valuation and retail sale and prescribes corresponding abatements in respect of the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) has made incorrect observations in this regard. The applicant further submits that the goods exported by the applicant clearly fall under S. No. 100 of the third Schedule, under the head, Parts, components and assemblies of Automobiles . Merely because the said goods are exported, it does not mean that the same are not covered under the third Schedule. It is further submitted that the third schedule does not prescribe or specify in any manner that goods meant for export would not be covered or that the goods so specified are mandatorily only for retail sale. 4.8 It is also submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and orders-in-appeal. 7. Government Observed that the applicant filed a declaration on 24.09.2010 under Notification No. 21/2004-CE. (N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 for export under claim of rebate of duty on excisable material used in manufacture or processing of export goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the goods exported on payment of Central Excise duty. The Original authority rejected the said declaration by holding that the process of packing/repacking and labelling, re- labelling of goods meant for export, under taken by the applicant, doesn't amount to manufacture and is, thus not eligible for claim of rebate as per Notification No. 21/2004(N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the application has filed this revision Application on Grounds mentioned in par (4) above. 8. Government observes that the original authority has rejected the applicant s claim by holding that the process of. packing/repacking and labeling, re-labelling of goods meant for export, under taken by the applicant, doesn't amount to manufacture and is, thus not eligible for claim of rebate as per Notification No. 21/2004(N.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng not amounting to manufacture (such as packing, blending etc.) will also be eligible for the benefit under said notification. In view of said instructions, rebate of duty paid on materials used in the processing of said export goods is admissible, subject to the condition that goods are not exported under claim for duty drawback, goods are not exported in discharge of export obligation under value based advance license, and input stage cenvat credit is not availed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. These conditions are specified in Para 1.4 of Part V of Chapter 8 of CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Conditions 11. In view of the above discussions and findings, Government observes that the respondents have used the materials in the processing of export goods and complied with all the conditions/procedures of the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E.N. T.), dated 6-9-04 which was valid during the period of export and there is no dispute about the actual export of the goods Therefore, respondents were eligible for input stage rebate claim subject to fulfilment of condition mentioned in pam 10 above. 9. Government finds that fact of this case is similar to fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
