TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no double benefit available to manufacturer when only Customs portion of All Industry Rate 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. The instant rebate claims of duty paid on exported goods are not admissible - revision application rejected - decided against applicant. - F. No. 195/744/2013-RA - 22/2015-CX - Dated:- 27-7-2015 - Ms. Rimjhim Prasad, Joint Secretary Shri S. Durairaj, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Kadri Mills (Cbe) Ltd., Erode (hereinafter referred to as applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 33/2013-(SLM)CEX, dated 26-4-2013, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem with respect to Order-in-Original No. 65/2012(R)AC/Erode-I, dated 18-12-2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Not availed the Drawback 57/11-12, 29-12-2011 KW 148-11-12 to KW 150-11-12 all dated 23-12-2011 6903012, 30-12-2011 1748092 59108 ₹ 25 per kg. Customs + Excise + Service Tax 6903028, 30-12-2011 449233 ₹ 25 per kg. Customs + Excise + Service Tax 6912350, 30-12-2011 101277 ₹ 54 per kg. Customs + Excise + Service Tax As the applicant availed double benefit except in the ARE 1 No. 55/11-12, dated 21-12-2011, the lower authority, in the impugned order denied to sanction the rebate in cash and he ordered for re-credit in their Cenvat Credit account in respect of remaining ARE-1. 3. Being aggrieved by the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 duty from their CENVAT account on credit accumulated from capital goods and input services. The respondent Department vide written submission dated 20-3-2015 mainly reiterated contents of impugned Orders. None attended personal hearing on behalf of respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case files, oral written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant was registered as 100% EOU and started operating as a domestic tariff area manufacturer w.e.f. 9-12-2011. While de-bonding, they discharged their duty liability 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. The applicant then reversed the Cenvat credit av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch goods. The provisions of Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are interpreted by Hon ble High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, in the case of CCE Nagpur v. Indorama Textiles Ltd. - 2006 (200) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) wherein it was held that rebate provided in Rule 18 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 is only on duty paid on one of the stages i.e. either on excisable goods or on materials used in manufacture or processing of such goods. Hence, assessee 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 finished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Commissioner of Trade Tax, UP v. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.) it was held on the issue of interpretation of statutes that context and parameters of statutory provisions under which a Notification is issued, are to be read in toto and when a Notification is issued under one statutory provision for same purpose as a chain of progress without overlapping, the ambiguity of contents of such Notification can be resolved by referring not only to statutory provisions but also to previous and subsequent Notification. Further, Government, going by the observations of Hon ble Supreme Court in Case (i) ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] and (ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. C.C. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)] that the plain and simple wordings of the (clarified/stipulated) statute are to be strictly adhered to, is of the considered opinion that the claimed rebate of duty paid on exported goods is not admissible in these cases. Further, the case laws relied upon by the applicant are not applicable to the present cases as the facts involved are different. 12. In view of above circumstances, Government holds that the instant rebate claims of duty pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
