1994 (8) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from an Indian firm M/s. Chinar Exports Ltd. for manufacture, supply and export of sound recorders and reproducers. They imported the components for their final product and took the Modvat credit towards additional duty paid on such components. These goods were finally exported after the manufacture from their factory on the strength of AR-4 application. The fact that the goods had been exported from the factory for export has not been disputed. 2.1 Since the credit taken by the respondents towards Modvat could not be utilised towards similar products as exported, the respondents in terms of provision of Rule 57F(3) filed a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 2,23,281.59 towards BED and Rs. 10,663.46 towards SED for export of goods effect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cited the case in the case of CCE v. GAVS Laboratories (P) Ltd., reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 717 in support of his contention. 5. The learned Advocate Sh. Naveen Mullick for the respondents submitted that what is relevant in 57F(3) is the fact of export. The goods were allowed to be removed under bond by the Supdt. without duty. The bond had been executed before the Supdt. and the fact of export is not denied. The goods in fact moved directly from the manufacturers' premises for shipment in accordance with the procedure prescribed in such cases. He submitted that the case cited (supra) relates to DEEC scheme and the facts here are entirely different. The learned advocate cited the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. etc. etc. v. CCE a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uires only export of goods and on such export being established, the manufacturer is entitled to refund. In the present case the fact of export has not been denied. AR-4 clearly shows that export has been allowed under bond from the premises of the manufacturers after merchant exporters executed the necessary bond. The practice of merchant exporters lifting goods from the premises of manufacturers after executing necessary bond is well established. Merely because merchant exporters exported the goods would not mean that goods in fact have not been exported in accordance with rules relating to export. It cannot be said that manufacturers' duty liability in regard to goods admittedly cleared for export is discharged since merchant exporters h....