9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amil Nadu. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were registered as 100% EOU and they have opted out of 100% EOU scheme w.e.f. 9-12-2011 and functioning as domestic tariff area manufacturing unit. At the time of debonding, they paid duty on inputs, work in progress, finished goods, consumables and capital goods and availed Cenvat credit on the duty paid on the said goods during November, 2011 as detailed below : Description Cenvat E : Cess SHE Cess Inputs 8793701 218169 109084 Capital Goods 10396260 32049 16036 Input Service 13657 273 137 The applicant reversed the credit availed on inputs Rs. 8793701+ Rs. 218169 + Rs. 109084 during December, 2011. The applicant exported the goods under ARE1 No. 53/11-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 During the period of availing higher drawback, applicants were having accumulated credit in their capital goods credit account and also in their input services credit account. Input services credit was earned during the non-drawback EOU period, which they are eligible for refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 otherwise, it can be used for payment of duty on exports. 4.2 The applicants had exported their goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices credit earned during the EOU period and which are related to non-drawback exports. Rs. 20,80,124/ - was given as re-credit instead of cash. This is not correct because as per Board's Circular No. 687/3/2003-CX, dated 3-1-2003 rebate should be given in cash. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 30-3-2015 and 16-4-2015. Hearing held on 16-4-2015 was attended by Shri S. Durairaj, Advocate on behalf of applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Besides, the applicant also submitted written reply wherein, they mainly reiterated Board's Circular No. 687/3/2003-Cx, dated 3-1-2003 and Government of India Order in case of Premonit International EXIMP - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 152 (GOI) and that they have paid du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icant's Cenvat account. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in Para (4) above. 8. Government observes that the applicant, has claimed that as they are left with only Cenvat credit availed on capital goods and input services there is no bar on availing drawback and rebate simultaneously and rebate be sanctioned to them in cash. On the other hand, the departmental authorities have held that as the applicant have availed higher rate of drawback comprising Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, allowing rebate would amount to double benefit. In view of rival contentions, Government proceeds to examine the case keeping in mind the various pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is not entitled to claim rebate of duty paid at both stages simultaneously i.e. duty paid at input stage as well as finished goods stage. The principles laid down in said judgment are to be followed while considering rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Applicant is now claiming rebate of duty paid on exported goods while he has already availed benefit of higher rate of duty drawback comprising of Custom, Central Excise and Service Tax in respect of said exported goods. The drawback is nothing but rebate of duty chargeable on materials used in manufacturing of exported goods and therefore allowing rebate of duty paid on exported goods will amount to allowing both types of rebates of duty at inputs stage as well as fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Drawback is claimed. The harmonious and combined reading of statutory provisions of Drawback and rebate scheme reveal that double benefit is not permissible as a general rule. However, in this case, the applicant has availed input stage rebate of duty in the form of higher duty drawback comprising of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax portion, another benefit of rebate of duty paid on exported goods will definitely amount to double benefit. 11. As regards citing of individual interpretations/applicability of above mentioned Notifications/Case Laws, Government observes that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Paper v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) = 2008 (12) S.T.R. 536 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
