9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f rebate of Rs. 1,16,93,725/- along with interest at 12% per annum from date of rebate claim. 2. I have heard the Learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman for the Petitioner for Mr. M.S. Visvanathan, Advocate, the Insolvency Resolution Professional appointed by the National company law Tribunal to represent the interests of the petitioner company. 3. The petitioner is a defunct 100% EOU. It has stopped manufacturing goods on account of several factors. During the period in dispute the petitioner had exported goods and claimed rebate of Central Excise Duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. It was the contention of the Department that the petitioner was not entitled to rebate claim under Rule 18 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner had surrendered the Excise registration as early as 20-12-2013 and since the respondents decided the issue only on 25-1-2017 the petitioner could not utilise its CENVAT credit which had been accumulated and debited as excise duty. 9. The Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate Commissioner and has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short point alone. On merits it is submitted that as a DTA petitioner could not have perforce paid excise duty to claim reba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was allowed to accumulate and lapse. 14. Under a somewhat similar circumstances in Union of India v. Slovak India Trading Co. Private Uimited - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 559 the Karnataka High Court has granted refund of Cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 even though the petitioner was not eligible for refund of excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods under notification issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the company had closed on its factory and in view of the said company coming out of MODVAT (actually Cenvat) scheme. The court there answered substantial question of law in favour of the company. 15. Further appeal to the Honourable Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the petitioner could utilise it, it could not claim refund of such duty under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 18. As a "Export Oriented Unit" the petitioner would have been entitled to receive goods without payment of duty under various Customs as Central Excise Notification. Export-oriented units being engaged in generation of foreign exchange for the country have been exempt from payment of duty not only on their procurements but also on final products which are exported. Not only goods used by them are exempt in terms of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 but also the final products are exempt under in terms of Notification No. 24/2003-C.E., dated 31-3-2003. The benefit of Notification No. 24/2003-C.E., dated 31 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
