9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nit and rebate of excise duty amounting to Rs. 18,04,540/- paid on such inputs by the said manufacturer, as mentioned in relevant procurement document, has been claimed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended. SCN dated 9-10-2007 was issued by the Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-VII Commissionerate proposing for rejection of the claim for rebate of aforesaid amount on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 18 and stipulation of Notification No. 19/2004 ibid inasmuch as the term "duty paid" used in Rule 18 does not include that portion of duty which is subsequently refunded to the manufacturer. After following due process of law, the Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-VII Commissionerate vide Order-in-Original No. 09R/MC/ER/KOL-VII/2008, dated 31-3-2008 rejected the said rebate claim. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, respondent filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the same in favour of respondents by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2008. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured and cleared by units availing the area based exemption scheme" and not 'as such' export of inputs manufactured and cleared by units availing the area based exemption scheme. This is further confirmed in the later part of the said instructions through the following sentences : "The units located in other parts of the country manufacture the goods, and pay the applicable excise duty on export of goods, and therefore, they are eligible to claim rebate of said duties under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Board's instructions dated 8-12-2006 cannot be applied to such units as it clarifies that the term 'duty paid' used in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not include that portion of duty, which is subsequently refunded to the 'manufacturer' (units availing are based exemption). In the present case, the units located in other parts of the country are the manufacturers, and no portion of duty paid by them is refunded to them, therefore, rebate cannot be denied to such units." 4.4 In other words, the rebate under examination in the said instruction is in respect of goods manufactured by the units located in other parts of the country (i.e., by units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises under cover of among other documents and we filed claim of Rebate of duty paid. 5.3 Departmental instructions restricting payment of rebate under Rule 18 given vide Board's Letter F. No. 209/11/2005-CX-6, dated 8-12-2006 were issued relating to rebate of the duty paid to the manufacturer availing the said area based exemptions only and not to units located in other parts of the country. While issuing further instructions on the subject rebate on goods manufactured in North-East etc. F. No 209/11/2005-CX-6, dated 3-4-2007, it has been clarified, inter alia, that "there is no bar on utilizing this credit for payment of duty on goods cleared for exports. The units located in other parts of the country manufacture the goods and pay the applicable excise duty on export of goods, and therefore, they are eligible to claim rebate of said duties under Rule 18 of the said Rules. The Board's instructions dated 8-12-2006 cannot be applied to such units as it clarifies that the term duty paid used in Rule 18 does not include that portion of duty, which is subsequently referred to "the manufacturers" (units availing are based exemption). In the present case, the units located in other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -4-2013. Shri Biswajit Bhowmik, Accountant, authorized representative of respondent appeared for hearing on 4-4-2013 on behalf of the respondent who reiterated the submissions made their written reply and requested to uphold the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 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 notes that Maritime Commissioner had rejected the rebate claim relying on C.B.E. & C. Circular dated 8-12-2006, 3-4-2007 and Notifn. No. 37/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-9-2007 which has amended Notifn. No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case in favour of respondents. Now department has filed this revision application on the ground stated in Para 4 abvove. 9. Government notes that the respondent procured the said goods from a manufacturing unit M/s. Hanny Fibre Pvt. Ltd. located in North-East who was availing area based exemption of Central Excise duty under Notifn. Nos. 32/2009-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 and cleared/ exported the same to SEZ Unit in Falta, West Bengal. Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issue of rebate on goods manufactured in North East, etc. and subsequently exported under Rule 18 of CER, 2002. It has been specifically clarified that unit located in other parts of the country are permitted to take full credit of duty paid on the inputs under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and there is no bar on utilizing this credit for payment of duty on goods cleared for exports under claim of rebate in terms of Rule 18 of CER, 2002. The said circular further clarified that units located in other parts of the country are the manufacturers and no portion of duty paid by them is refunded to them and therefore rebate cannot be denied to them. Government finds no ambiguity in said clarification and it is applicable to the instant case since the respondent after procuring goods from manufacturer in North East on payment of duty has exported the same to SEZ Unit. The department has not disputed the fact that duty paid goods procured from a unit availing area based exemption Notifn. Nos. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E. both dated 8-7-1999, have been exported to SEZ Unit. In view of clarification contained in circular dated 3-4-2007, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
