2010 (12) TMI 1025 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Government rules in favor of M/s. Inter Globe Services in interpretation case of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E.

The Government ruled in favor of M/s. Inter Globe Services, Mumbai, in a case concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The ... Revision applications - export under the claim for rebate of duty paid from the balance of accumulated Cenvat credit - applicants were not availing the cenvat credit on the grey fabrics but were taking the cenvat credit on the chemicals and other raw materials used in the manufacturing/processing of the processed fabrics thus entitled to avail both the notification 29/2004-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E. simultaneously if they keep separate records for the same - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has drawn a conclusion that as the applicants were not claiming the cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of the exported goods, hence they were working under exemption Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-04. Govt. observes that this conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) is without any basis. Moreover, the option is with the manufacturer to avail or not to avail cenvat credit on the inputs as the availment of cenvat credit is a beneficial scheme and there is nothing in the Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-04 for the manufacturer to compulsorily avail cenvat credit on the inputs. There is bar only on non-availment of cenvat input credit under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, rebate of duty paid on export goods under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 is admissible to the applicants if they have complied with the Board Circular Nos. 795/28/2004-CX., dated 28-7-2004 and 845/3/2006-CX, dated 1-2-2007. The impugned orders are set aside. Government remands back to original adjudicating authority to decide the cases afresh after giving proper opportunity to the application keeping in mind the above observations, Revision Applications is disposed off in above terms. Issues:- Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 regarding exemption from duty- Availability of rebate claims for processed fabrics cleared for export- Compliance with Central Excise Act, 1944 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002- Applicability of simultaneous availment of Notifications No. 29/2004-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004Interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004:The case involved M/s. Inter Globe Services, Mumbai, engaged in exporting goods manufactured by processors. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, which exempted specified textile articles from duty if no credit of duty paid on inputs had been taken under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The applicant claimed that they had taken credit on chemicals used in processing the fabrics, making them ineligible for the exemption under the said notification.Availability of rebate claims for processed fabrics:The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the rebate claims of the applicant, leading to the revision applications. The applicant argued that they were entitled to rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as they had paid duty on the processed fabrics. They contended that the duty paid should be refunded as it was undisputedly excise duty, regardless of whether it was statutorily payable.Compliance with Central Excise Act, 1944 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002:The applicant highlighted that they had followed the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, in their manufacturing process. They emphasized that the exemption claimed by the authorities was optional and that they had the right to either claim or relinquish the exemption available to them.Applicability of simultaneous availment of Notifications No. 29/2004-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004:The Government observed that the applicants were entitled to avail both Notifications No. 29/2004-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004 simultaneously if separate accounts were maintained. The authorities had incorrectly concluded that the applicants were covered under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, based on the non-availment of Cenvat credit on inputs, whereas the option to avail such credit was at the manufacturer's discretion.In conclusion, the Government found in favor of the applicants, stating that they were eligible for rebate under Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004, provided they complied with the relevant Circulars issued by the CBEC. The impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in line with the observations made.