TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y/additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty on which it availed CENVAT Credit to manufacture goods exported - There is no discussion in the impugned orders of the 1st, 2ndrespondent and the 3rd respondent as to under which customs notification the goods were imported by the petitioner under the Advance Authorisation Scheme. The petitioner has used goods/inputs procured on payment of Central Excise duty and Additional Duty of Customs equivalent to Central Excise Duty along with goods imported under the Advance Authorisation Scheme to manufacture of export goods to claim rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the finished goods exported from the Coimbatore unit of the petitioner - Normally, only after export obligation undertaken/specified in the Advance Authorisation is discharged, a manufacturer would be entitled to either sell the manufactured goods in the domestic tariff area i.e in the domestic market on payment of excise duty or export them and claim rebate of excise duty paid on such goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. To allow rebate claim to the petitioner without the petitioner discharging the obligation underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claims by the Department and ultimate sanction of the rebate claims. 5. The petitioner effected direct exports from its factory through Internal Container Depot (ICD) in Coimbatore under the supervision of the officers of the Excise Department. The export consignments were physically verified with the description and the quantity listed in Form ARE 1 with the Respective Export Invoices. After due verification, the consignments were exported. 6. The petitioner filed 6 rebate claims between January 2008 and March 2008 for the goods exported by it between November 2007 and January 2008 for a total sum of ₹ 22,45,748/-. 7. The 1st respondent partially sanctioned the rebate claims for a sum of ₹ 14,48,817/- by way of re-credit into the CENVAT Account of the petitioner s. The 1st respondent rejected the rebate claims to an extent of ₹ 8,00,931/-on the ground that the description of the export goods in the export invoices were invariance within the description in Form ARE-1's and hence the petitioner was not entitled to rebate to that extent. 8. Aggrieved by the orders of the 1st respondent as detailed in the above chart, the petitioner had filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the duty paid from this earned cenvat credit could not be rebated in cash. Government finds no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in allowing recredit of the amount paid as duty on the exported goods and accordingly uphold them. 8. Regarding the second issue where the description of the goods exported does not tally with those cleared from the factory of manufacture, Government observes that for claiming rebate of duty, the exporter has to corelate the goods those document like Shipping Bill/Bill of lading/Commercial invoice etc, to establish that the some goods have been exported by way of matching of description of goods etc. 9. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to do so. The Commissioner (Appeals) has already passed a very detailed and judicious order and Government finds no reason whatsoever to interfere in these orders and hence uphold them. 10. Revision application is rejecting being devoid of merit. '' 10. Challenging the impugned Order, the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and therefore denial of rebate claim to an extent of ₹ 8,00,931/- was also justified. It is submitted that there is no ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case was heard and reserved for passing orders on 13.12.2019. The petitioner was called upon to file a sample copy of the purchase order placed by foreign buyer so as to find out the description of the goods which were to be exported by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of a purchase order dated 23.10.2007 wherein the description of the goods to be supplied by the petitioner is SG/Ductile Iron Machine Casting Pipe Fitting Assembly . In some of the export invoice, shipping bill and the commercial invoice, the petitioner has however described the export product as SG/Ductile Iron Machine Casting for Pipe Fitting which according to the petitioner was typographical mistake . 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 17. From a perusal of the records, it is noticed that the petitioner had imported goods under Advance Authorisation Scheme under the relevant Foreign Trade Policy. 18. Goods imported under Advance Authorisation Schemes are exempted are from payment of customs duty, additional customs duty, education cess, anti-dumping duty and safeguard duty et cetera. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
