TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide that an exporter operating under Advance Licence Scheme could also avail of the rebate on terminal excise duty paid on the resultant export product under Rule 18 - a corrigendum was issued to N/N. 93/2004-Cus. vide Public Notice 2/2005, dated 17-5-2005 in order to restore the status quo ante i.e. the licence holder was debarred from availing of rebate of duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of export goods. The corrigendum was issued to set right an inadvertent error which occurred for the second time at the time of issuance of N/N. 93/2004-Cus. pursuant to coming into force of the new Foreign Trade Policy w.e.f. 1-9-2004. Impugned order cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/341/2010 - FINA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as evidenced in the shipping bills, appellant had exported white crystal sugar through merchant exporter, Cargill, who in turn availed rebate under Rule 18 19 of Central Excise Rules. As the goods had already been cleared by appellant to Cargill on payment of duty, it appeared that rebate has been availed in violation of condition No.(v) of the above notification and that appellants had availed both benefits of duty free import and benefits of duty free import and rebate. Show cause notice was issued to appellant proposing recovery of demand of duty forgone amounts of ₹ 25,84,93,386/- and ₹ 17,17,17,924/- in respect of the two advance licenses with interest thereon, confiscation of the imported goods which were released and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bulk packing into retail packing amounts to manufacture. iv) The condition in which third party exporter exports is not relevant to decide eligibility to exemption for the importer who is the holder of Advance Licenses / Authorizations in question. v) The Commissioner not only misunderstood the whole issue, wrongly interpreted condition (v) of the Customs Notification 93/2004-Cus. as it existed prior to corrigendum issued amending the condition, also applied such unamended condition for the subject licences which were issued after such amendment, but failed to take note that the appellants had paid back the rebate claimed on PP bags and no repayment of rebate on white sugar was required to be made as per Central Excise adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to set right the anomaly, a Corrigendum was issued vide PN 9/2002, dated 29-11-2002 to provide that an exporter operating under Advance Licence Scheme could also avail of the rebate on terminal excise duty paid on the resultant export product under Rule 18. This was a conscious decision because, as explained above, the earlier notifications issued under Advance Licence Scheme (e.g. Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-92 etc.) had contained the same provision all along. 3. After issue of this corrigendum the DGCEI sought a clarification about its validity on the ground that in the subsequent Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. issued under Advance Licence Scheme, the advance licence holder was debarred from availing the rebate facility u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
