9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mumbai-II. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants engaged in manufacture of excisable goods, falling under Tariff Heading No. 8322 20 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, filed the rebate claims for the goods exported by them under various ARE-1s. The adjudicating authority rejected the rebate claims on the ground that the goods exported were not manufactured by the applicant but the same were purchased as inputs and that the duty on exported goods should have been paid equivalent to the amount of Cenvat credit availed instead of duty paid in terms of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Cenvat credit availed in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has no relevance. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 7-8-2013 was attended by Shri Kishore Ahuja, Manager, Corporate Tax & Shri Nitin Paras, Manager, Indirect Tax on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the applicant procured goods as inputs and exported the same as such on payment of duty. The original authority rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the goods were not manufactured by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such, what is required in terms of Rule 3(5) of C.C.R., 2004, is the reversal of Cenvat credit equal to the amount of credit availed in respect of such inputs. The same may be more or less than the assessable value under Section 4 of C.E.A., 1944. It is claimed that the same was more but there is no evidence in this regard. The appellant have failed to follow the provisions of Rule 3(5) of C.C.R., 2004. They have placed reliance on Board Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX., dated 3-2-2000 which is not applicable in the instant case as it speaks about the export of goods where value is determined in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and accordingly duty is paid. Whereas the instant case relates to export of inputs cleared as such wherein dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; for each quarter in the second year @ 8% for each quarter in the third year @ 5% for each quarter in the fourth and fifth year @ 1% (b) for capital goods, other than computers and computer peripherals @ 2.5% for each quarter." From perusal of above mentioned provision, it is unambiguously clear that when any inputs are removed as such from factory, duty of an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs shall be paid. In this case applicant has no duty paying invoice for the said goods therefore duty paid nature of goods and availment of Cenvat cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
