TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xported through merchant exporter and the said goods have been exported under Bond. As the input is used in the process of manufacture of final product, therefore, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit thereof and as the appellant has not taken Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs consequently the appellant is entitled for refund of duty paid on the inputs. Therefore,appellant is entitled for refund claim. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/121/2008-EX(SM) - - - Dated:- 20-4-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri P K Mittal, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R K Mishra, DR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before this Tribunal and this Tribunal has remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim in terms of the order of this Tribunal dated 23.06.1992. In remand, the Dy. Commissioner on 01.11.1999 again rejected the refund claim on the ground that goods exported by M/s U.K. Paints and appellant is not an independent exporter. The said order was again challenged before the Ld. Commissioner who also rejected the refund claim on 26.12.2001. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and vide order 18.12.2012, this Tribunal remanded matter back to the adjudicating authority with the direction to ascertain the fact as to whether export of goods affected through M/s U.K. Paints have been made under DEEC schem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /02 dated 18.12.2002 observed as under: The appellants have claimed that the Assistant Collector, while adjudicating the matter vide order dated 21.01.1994 has recorded that the Appellants has stated at the time of personal hearing that They have neither imported any duty fee imported replenishment material from M/s U.K. Paint Industries, nor they have knowledge regarding the manner of disposal of the said material. He then gave his findings that Hence it can logically inferred that imported material under DEEC Scheme has not gone in the manufacture of the final product which has been exported which means that the imported material has been sold in the open market by M/s U.K. Paints Industries, New Delhi. Hence the co-relation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has relied on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs Meghdoot Pistons (P) Ltd.-2006 (201) ELT 398 (Tri. Delhi) and CCE, Chandigarh Vs Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.-1997 (18) RLT 607 (CEGAT-NB) to say that the drawback relate to the custom duty and in this case the appellant is claiming the refund of excise duty paid on inputs. Therefore the question of double benefit does not arise to the appellant. 7. I have gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Meghdoot Pistons (P) Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal relied on the CBEC Circulat No. 83/2000 dated 16.10.2000 and observed as under: It is clear from the above clarification of the Board that refund of MODVAT credit or Cenvat Credit (Central Excise Duty) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manufacture of exported soap, the assessee was not eligible to take/ avail modvat credit in respect of duty paid on indigenous inputs used in the manufacture of soaps. It was also alleged that assessee had used phosphoric acid for purification and since phosphoric acid not an input used in the manufacture of soap, therefore, no modvat credit was admissible to phosphoric acid. It was also alleged that for caustic soda 1ye, no duty paying document was produced and therefore, modvat credit on caustic soda 1ye was admissible. In these facts, this Tribunal observed as under: On careful consideration of the submissions and the evidence on record, we find that inputs as well as the finished products are specidied products under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
