9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacturer allowing the claimant to claim the rebate of duties paid on exported goods. During scrutiny of the documents submitted by the claimant it is found that the manufacturer of exported goods has availed benefit of exemption under Notification No.39/2001-CE, dated 31.07.2001 and self-availed re-credit of the amount of duty paid from PLA account, in the succeeding month in terms of the provisions of Notification No.65/2003-CE dated 06.08.2003. 2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant filed rebate claim with the Lower Authority involving duty of Rs. 5041536/- during the month of September, 2007. As a special Scheme of Government of India the applicant availed benefit of refund by way of re-credit under Notification No.39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001 and also claimed the rebate of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the same duty of exported goods which appears to be double benefit, as the refund granted by way of self-credit makes the goods exempted and no rebate can be allowed on exempted goods which makes the rebate claim ineligible under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no violation of Section. 11B. The Applicants submit that relevant date prescribed under Explanation is for computation of time limit for filing refund claim and it is not affected on eligibility of refund claim. 4.5 Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Applicants submit that Section 11B is entirely procedural provision. The substantive right to claim rebate arises under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004 (supra). Since the Applicants fulfilled conditions under the said Notification while clearing of the goods for export, rebate cannot be denied as Section 11B does not affect in any manner, any substantive or vested rights of the Applicants. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 24.9.12 and 11.4.14. Hearing held on 11.4.14 was attended by Shri A.Sheerazi, Advocate & Shri Jeet Oza, C.A. on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral & written submissions and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that original authority has rejected the rebate claim of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.576/2012-Cx dated 18.5.12 in the case of M/s Welspun Corp. Ltd. where applicant had filed revision application against OIA No.8/2011 dated 27.4.11 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Rajkot. The operative portion of said order is reproduced below: "6. On perusal of records, Government observes that initially the original authority sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 2,25,35,758/- and allowed re-credit of Rs. 13,73,922/- in the PLA account of the applicant. Commissioner Central Excise reviewed the impugned order and therefore department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the department appeal setting aside the impugned order-in-original so far it related to rebate claim of duty paid on goods exported after 17.09.2007. Now the applicant has filed revision application on the grounds stated in para 3 above. 7. Applicant has mainly pleaded that goods were cleared for export from the factory under Central Excise invoices dated 24.08.07 to 31.08.07 alongwith ARE-I 171 to 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.32/99-Central Excise, dated 8th July, 1999 [G.S.R. 508(E), dated the 8th July, 1999] or No.33/99-Central .Excise, dated 8th July, 1999 [G.S.R. 509(E), dated the 8th July, 1999] or No.39/99-Central Excise, dated 31st July, 2001 [G.S.R. 565(E), dated the 31st July, 2001] or notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Revenue) No.56/2002-Central Excise dated 14th November, 2002 [G.S.R. 764(E) dated 14th November, 2002] or No.57/2002-Central Excise dated 14th November, 2002 [G.S.R. 765(E) dated 14th November, 2002] or notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.56/2003-Central Excise dated 25th June, 2003 [G.S.R. 513(E) dated 25th June, 2003] or 71/2003-Central Excise dated the 9th September, 2003 [G.S.R. 717(E) dated the 9th September, 2003] or No.20/2007-Central Excise, dated the 25th April, 2007 [G.S.R. 307(E), dated the 25th April, 2007], the rebate shall not be admissible under this notification." The condition 2(h) envisaged that in case of export of goods which are manufactured by manufacturer availing specified notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government notes that none of the case laws cited by applicant relate to rebate of duty paid on exported goods under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Not. No.19/04-CE(NT) as amended vide Not. No.37/07-CE(NT) dated 17.07.07, so the ratio of same cannot be made applicable to the instant case 12. In view of above discussion and finding, Government is of the considered opinion that as per condition 2(h) of the notification No.19/04-CE(NT) as amended vide Not. No.37/07-CE(NT), the rebate of duty paid on goods exported on 23.9.07 is not admissible since they said goods are manufactured by a manufacturer availing Not. No.39/2001-Ce dated 31.7.2001. Government finds the impugned order-in-appeal as perfectly legal and proper and therefore upholds the same. 13. The revision application is rejected being devoid of merit. 14. So ordered." 10. Government notes that in the instant case also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
