TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (5) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ps Ltd. The detergents so manufactured was exported by M/s. V.A.M. International under bond. The respondents submitted two claims for the quarter January, 1991 to March, 1991 and April to June, 1991 on 22-8-1991 for refund of Modvat credit of the duty paid on inputs which were used in the manufacture of detergent which were exported under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector rejected both the refund claims, under order dated 23-3-1993, holding that the transaction between the Respondents and Godraj Soaps Ltd. was not on principal to principal basis as the detergent was manufactured out of the raw materials supplied by Godrej Soaps Ltd. and under the supervision of their inspector and amount of refund was to be pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of proviso C to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act which provides that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in respect of goods exported outside India without payment of duty; that it is clear from the copies of the shipping bills that they were availing of DEEC scheme as well as Modvat credit on the indigeneous raw materials which tantamounts to double benefit out of single export consignment which is not allowable; that the respondents had only submitted the xerox copies of the AR4s and shipping bills and in absence of which authenticity of the documents could not be verified by the Department. He, further, submitted that Notification No. 85/87 issued under Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules, provides that the refund claim sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as they had filed two different applications for two different quarters of the financial year and both applications were within the prescribed period of six months. He relied upon the decision in the case of Hotline Teletube & Components Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 33 (Tribunal) in which it was held that the conditions prescribed in Clause 2 of the Appendix to Notification No. 85/87 is a procedural requirement, the non-fulfilment of which cannot result in denial of the substantive benefit of refund which is conferred under Rule 57F. He also submitted that it is not necessary that the goods should be exported by the manufacturer himself; that what is required is that the goods should be exported out of India. He relied upon th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided that the credit of specified duty in respect of inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate products cleared for export in accordance with sub-rule (2) shall be allowed to be utilised towards payment of duty of excise on similar final products cleared for home consumption or for export on payment of duty and, where for any reason, such adjustment is not possible, by refund to the manufacturer subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations as may be specified by Central Government in the Official Gazette." 6. The facts which are not disputed are that the goods were manufactured by the Respondents; duty paying nature of the inputs; the fact of the export of final goods und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td., supra. The Tribunal has rightly held in that case that "The practice of merchant exporters lifting goods from the premises of manufacturer after executing necessary bond is well established. Merely because AR 4 forms indicate consignee name as that of merchant exporter would not mean goods have been (cleared) for home consumption particularly in view of the facturm of export of these goods not being denied." The Appellate Tribunal, in that case, "find no warrant for reading into Rule 57F(3) something that is not there." The ratio of the decision in the case of Gavs Laboratories - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 717 is not applicable as in that case the manufacturer was a supporting manufacturer as embodied in the DEEC scheme. In the present matter th....