TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant M/s. TAFE Ltd., Chennai against the order-in-appeal No. 72/2010, dated 20-12-2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Trichirapalli with respect to order-in-original No. 1712/2010, dated 21-7-2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Tuticorin. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants cleared the tractors from the factory of manufacture under ARE-2 for export and exported the tractors through Customs House, Tuticorin under Shipping Bill No. 2102572, dated 29-5-2010 and 218356, dated 2-7-2009 by claiming All Industry Drawback Rates. The applicants had in the Central Excise Documents ARE-2 declared that the goods were manufactured by availing Central Excise Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19(2) and (3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and claimed All Industry Duty Drawback Rates (Customs Portion) on the said goods. As per the relevant applicable Notification No. 103/2008-Cus. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2008 as amended, exporters are entitled for the drawback at the applicable rates provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, it is very clear that the goods manufactured by claiming benefits under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not eligible for All Industry Drawback Rate. 3.2 After due process of law Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the impugned order-in-original and allowed appeal of the Department. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The availment of the benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) only concerned the excise portion of the goods procured indigenously and the removal of goods under Form ARE-2 only governed the removal of excisable goods required for use in the manufacture or packing of export articles under bond which in no way result in denial of the applicant s right to earn the duty drawback on the customs portion since there exists no dichotomy in the matter. It is an undisputed fact that the applicants had used certain imported components in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng only availed Central Excise portion of duty benefits concerning the inputs used in the manufacture of tractors which had been exported, the denial of Customs portion of duty drawback is wholly incorrect and unwarranted. 4.6 It is true legal position that the All Industry Drawback Rules have been fixed in terms of Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules by duly considering the average quantity and value of each class of inputs imported or manufactured in India in which average amount of duties paid have been reckoned and the rates so fixed are payable without insisting on proof of the said duties having been paid in terms of M.F.(D.R.) Circular No. 24/2001-Cus., dated 20-4-2001 on account of the fact of such rates having been fixed on the basis of weighted averages of consumption of imported/indigenous inputs of a representative cross section of exporters and averge incidence of duties. 4.7 Case laws cited by the applicants are : Benny Impex Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 300 (G.O.I.) Associated Dye Stuff Industries v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 732 (Tri.) 5. Personal hearing was fixed in this case on 20-4-2012, 31-5-2012 and 29-6-2012. Nobody appeared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product is manufactured or exported by availing benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 9. Government notes that the Condition No. 8 of the Notification No. 103/2008-Cus. (N.T.), dated 29-8-2008 stipulates as under :- 9.1 The rates of drawback specified in the said schedule shall not be applicable to export of a commodity or product if such commodity or prouct is (b) .. (c) .. (d) .. (e) .. (f) manufactured or exported in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 9.2 In the present case, the respondents have declared in there ARE-2 that the goods were manufactured by availing exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the goods manufactured by claiming benefit under Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not eligible for All Industry Rate of Drawback. The respondents have not fulfilled the conditions in the above said Notification. Therefore, the respondents are not eligible for the drawba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
