TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle as adopted in M/s. Cot Fab Exports [2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA] is of the considered opinion that such a substantial benefit of rebate claim should not be denied once the Cenvat credit stands reversed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. No. 195/854/2011-RA - 1649/2012-CX - Dated:- 5-12-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Sujit Kumar Singh, General Manager, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant M/s. Pearson Drum Barrels Pvt. Ltd., Taloja, Distt. Raigarh, Maharashtra against Order-in-Appeal No. PKS/190/BEL/2010, dated 23-7-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III, Mumbai Zone-II Belapur, Navi M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facility of input stage credit of duty for which rebate is claimed, was not availed by the respondents; 3.5 On verification, it was found that the respondents have availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on raw material, GP coils, in respect of goods exported under all three ARE-2; and 3.6 The respondents have availed double benefit, i.e. credit of duty paid on raw material under CCR, 2004 and also rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After considering the submissions of both parties, Commissioner allowed the appeal of department by setting aside the impugned order-in-original dated 23-4-2009. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant have filed this revision application under Section 35EE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce the benefit has to be given of the notification granting exemption/rate of duty on the final product since the reversal of the credit on the input was done at the Tribunal s stage. 4.5 That not only the Allahabad High Court but also the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Ashima Dyecot Ltd. - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.) has also adopted a similar view. This judgment of the Gujarat High Court was upheld on an appeal filed by the Department before the Hon ble Supreme Court by rejecting the appeal for the department as reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T. A41 (S.C.). 4.6 The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e : Drawcans (P) Ltd. - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 189 (G.O.I.) wherein it has been consistently held that procedural lapse cannot come on the way of substantial benefit of rebate claims. The same view has been echoed by the Government of India in its recent decisions viz. Re : Barot Exports - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 321 (G.O.I.), Re.: Harison Chemicals - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 171 (G.O.I.). 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 28-9-2012. Shri Sujit Kumar Singh, General Manager, appeared for personal hearing on behalf of applicant who reiterated grounds of revision application. Nobody attended personal hearing from respondent side. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned orders-in-original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the applicant exporter has differentiated the factual situation of his case matter from the relied upon case laws with the plea that he is neither a manufacturer of such final products which are dutiable as well as exempted from duty for which it is not reasonably possible to segregate inputs nor he was disputing any eligibility criteria for an Exemption notification. The applicant herein is relying upon C.C.E. v. M/s. Ashima Dyelot Ltd. case [2008 (232) E.L.T. 580 (Guj.)] the Civil Appeal against which by the department stands dismissed by Apex Court. Government also notes that in concluding part of paras 7 and 8 of this case, the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat had observed This issue had come up for consideration before the Allahabad H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
