Govt. mandates disclaimer certificates & evidence under Central Excise, confirms Creative Mobus Fabrics as manufacturer/exporter.

The Govt. upheld the Comm. (Appeals) directions with modifications, requiring disclaimer certificates from all manufacturers and documentary evidence of activities under Central Excise supervision. M/s. Creative Mobus Fabrics Ltd. was confirmed as a manufacturer/exporter, addressing objections on eligibility, raw material description, and procedural lapses, rendering departmental objections unsustainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of M/s. Creative Mobus Fabrics Ltd. as manufacturer/exporter.
2. Requirement of disclaimer certificate on AR-4/AR-5.
3. Discrepancy in raw material description.
4. Non-mention of merchant-exporter's name on AR-5/ARE-2.

Summary:

1. Eligibility of M/s. Creative Mobus Fabrics Ltd. as Manufacturer/Exporter:
The department objected that M/s. Creative Mobus Fabrics Ltd. are neither manufacturers nor exporters as per Shipping Bills. The Original Authority noted that only a manufacturer or processor who exports can claim input stage rebate. However, Circular No. 602/39/2001-CX, dated 21-11-2001, allows rebate for both manufacturer-exporter and merchant-exporter if inputs are used in manufacturing/processing and cleared directly from the factory. The Respondents provided detailed processes showing they retained ownership of the fabrics throughout. The Government concluded that M/s. Creative Mobus Fabrics Ltd. are indeed manufacturers/exporters, making the department's objection unsustainable.

2. Requirement of Disclaimer Certificate on AR-4/AR-5:
The department argued that the disclaimer certificate should be on the AR-4/AR-5. The Respondents contended that they provided valid disclaimer certificates separately for each consignment. The Government referenced the case of Simplex Global Impex v. CCE, Nagpur, where it was held that export rebate should not be denied if a disclaimer certificate is produced later. The Government agreed but modified the order to require disclaimer certificates from all manufacturers of the export goods.

3. Discrepancy in Raw Material Description:
The department noted a specific case where the raw material was described as "cotton 100% shtng 153 cms" while the exported goods were bed sheets and pillow covers. The Respondents clarified that the term should be read as "sheeting" not "shirting," attributing the discrepancy to a clerical error. The Government found this explanation plausible and deemed the department's objection unsustainable.

4. Non-Mention of Merchant-Exporter's Name on AR-5/ARE-2:
The department objected to the absence of M/s. IKEA Trading's name on AR-5/ARE-2. The Government observed that the sale and subsequent export by M/s. IKEA Trading were not disputed, and the omission was a procedural lapse that should not hinder substantive benefits.

Conclusion:
The Government upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) directions with modifications, requiring disclaimer certificates from all manufacturers and documentary evidence of activities under Central Excise supervision. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was upheld with these modifications.

---