TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules 1995, the petitioner is not entitled to claim both the rebates. - Decided against the appellant - W.P.No.1226 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2016 - M. DURAISWAMY JJ. For the appellant : Mr.K.S. Venkatagiri For the Respondent : Mr.V. Sundareswaran ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order No.51/2015-CX dated 24.08.2015, passed by the first respondent and quash the same. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that they are manufacturers of synthetic and blended textile yarn made out of raw materials, viz., duty paid polyester staple fiber or polyester viscose staple fiber. The petitioner utilised the said duty paid inputs without av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ester staple fiber and viscos staple fiber used in the manufacture of the exported goods. 5.The Government of India announced All Industry Rates Drawback on goods exported from India. The All Industry Rates Drawback compensate the exporters for the incidence of duties suffered by them on the inputs, raw materials and consumables and service tax paid on the input services, used in the manufacture of export goods. According to the petitioners, the yarn, exported by the petitioner, is covered under the Drawback Scheme. 6.The petitioners exported the finished goods on payment of duty and claimed rebate of the duty paid on the finished goods exported by them in terms of prescribed procedure from their factory. The petitioners filed three r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the duty paid on the finished goods or the duty paid on the materials used in the manufacture. 9.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal No.1978 of 2007 dated 9.10.2015, which reads as follows: 26.Likewise, in Mazagon Dock Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, word 'or' occurring under Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was construed as 'and' when the Court found that the Legislature 'could not have intended' use of the expression 'or' in that Section. We have already explained the statutory scheme contained in the Act and Rules which express manifest intention of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Counsel further submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 12.After clearing the goods on payment of duty under claim for rebate, the petitioners should not have claimed drawback for the central excise and service tax portions, before claiming rebate of duty paid and they should have paid back the drawback amount availed before claiming rebate. When this was not done, availing both the benefits would certainly result in double benefit. 13.While sanctioning rebate, the export goods, being one and the same, the benefits availed by the petitioners on the said goods, under dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re under or of the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made there under, the drawback admissible on the said goods shall be reduced taking into account the lesser duty or tax paid or the rebate, refund or credit obtained. 15.In the judgment relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the benefits of rebate on the input on one hand as well on the finished goods exported on the other hand shall fall within the provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the exporters are entitled to both the rebates under the said Rule. 16.In the case on hand, the benefits claimed by the petitioners are covered under two different statutes one under Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
