2010 (5) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shri R.K Saini, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 65-CE/GZB/2007, dated 29-6-2007. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of submersible pumps and parts thereof falling under Chapter subheading 8413.13 of the first schedule to the CETA, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DC sets on the ground that the said DC sets have been exported out of India along with submersible pumps manufactured by them. The original authority, after granting personal hearing has rejected the refund. The order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the submersible pumps along with DC sets were exported i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. It is not in dispute that the DC sets were manufactured by M/s. Jackson and Company falling within the jurisdiction of a different Commissionerate. In respect of DC sets, the appellant is not the manufacturer; and they are only a buyer. As they have exported the DC sets, the appellant can be considered as merchant-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort benefits. If the DC sets were to be exported directly by M/s. Jackson and Company, same could have been exported without payment of duty under bond or under claim for rebate by them. The appellants could have stepped in as a merchant exporter of DC sets in question by following procedure prescribed for export by a merchant exporter. The appellant could have claimed drawback. There were, thus, ....