9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. The respondent is a declarant unit availing benefit of SSI exemption notification and procured the inputs on payment of duty which was utilised by them for manufacturing of goods which were finally exported and they filed a refund claim/rebate of the Central Excise duty paid on such inputs under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The said refund claim was verified by the Range Officer and it was informed in the absence of any details, the refund claim is not in accordance with law and refund cannot be granted. Show-cause notice was issued for rejection of such refund claim. Adjudicating authority after following the due process of law, came to the conclusion that respondent is eligible for the refund claim under Rule 5 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only in those circumstances where a manufacturer is not in a position to utilise the credit of duty on inputs allowed under Rule 3 of the said rules. It is a fact that the respondent being a declarant was not in a position to utilise the credit of duty on inputs. The general principle involved in exports is that while exporting the goods, on should not export the taxes. This principle is enshrined in Rule 18 and 19 of Central Excise Rules. In fact Rule 18 also specifically states that duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of exported goods are also eligible for rebate. Once it is established that duty was paid on the inputs, there should be no problem about refunding them. As regards the execution of bond is concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant as duty paid on inputs, we do not find any reason to interfere in such reasoned order passed by the lower authorities. 6. Learned AR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Santel Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-IV [2016(343) ELT 1026 (Tri. Chennai)]. On a perusal of the said judgment of the Tribunal, we find that the issue involved in that case is totally different inasmuch as whether the SSI exemption could be denied to manufacturer who was not the owner and the brand name is somebody else. We find that the facts involved in the case before us are totally different from the case on which reliance was placed by the Revenue. 7. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the appeal field by the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
