TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Surat. M/s. Shiv Textiles 1,12,640/- M/s. Rahul Textiles 3 195/549/09- RA RKA/78/SRT- I/2009 12-2-09 M/s. Vrindavan D. Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat M/s. Radhe Silk, Surat 99,315/- Hari Fabrics, Surat 4 195/550/09- RA RKA/80/SRT- I/2009 12-2-09 M/s. Vrindavan D. Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat M/s. Radhe Silk, Surat 3,47,571/- Hari Fabrics, Surat Hari Rotltwala, Surat 5 195/643/09- RA RKA/80-89/SRT-I/09 27-2-08 - - - M/s. Radhe Silk, Surat 3,19,435/- M/s. Ashia Fabrics 6 195/538/09- RA RKA/668/ SRT-I/08 22-9-08 M/s. Begani Dyg. Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat M/s. Krishna Textiles 57,506/- 2. Brief and common facts of the cases are that the applicant are merchant exporters of dyed fabrics made from 100% polyester falling under chapter sub-heading No. 5406.22 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have filed different rebate claims (as mentioned at column no. (6) of the table above) totally amounting to Rs. 9,28,865/- in respect of duty paid on the goods manufactured by various manufacturer/processor. The said goods were exported through Mumbai Port under various ARE-1s and Shipping Bill....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds:- 4.1 The department, in para 5 states that the Applicant is the supplier of the grey fabrics and has endorsed a fraudulent invoice. The applicant is also an exporter who has claimed rebate of such duty reflected on the fraudulent invoices endorsed by him but routed through the processor. That the department's stand is contradictory and it is settled law that an adjudication order containing contradictory findings deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 4.2 That the department cannot deny its responsibility of supplying the copies of the alert circulars to the applicants by stating that the alert circulars were widely published. 4.3 That the applicants seek to rely upon para 2 of the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 703/19/2003-CX, dated 25-3-2003 issued from F. No. B3/1/2003-TRU which prescribes duty paying documents as role basis for Credit. Rule 7 of reasonable steps was not applicable. "2. The purpose of the new rules is to allow the textile sector to carry on the work as they have been doing all along, and not to disturb the trade practices. It would be sufficient if the manufacturers of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, 2003 and the same is impermissible in law. It is settled law that nobody can take advantage of its own wrong. They relied upon the following case laws : ● Garima Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV - (182) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.) ● Haryana Steel Alloys v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Del.) ● C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Sadashiv Casting (P) Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 381 (Tri.-Del.) 4.7 That since there is no allegation of non-grant of registration to the weavers who supplied grey to the traders/brokers through whom we received the grey fabrics and invoices, only on the basis of alert circular, credit validly availed by under Section cannot be denied. The Applicants, inter alia, rely upon following authorities :- ● 2005 (182) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Del.) - Garima Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV. ● Amarsri Engineering Co. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 659 (Tri.-Bang.) ● C.C.E. & C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de Alert Circular issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-I, the said units were declared as fictitious. Nobody came forward to claim that suppliers were not fake units. Even, the applicant manufacturer has not challenged the said circular by arranging appearance of persons concerned or producing any affidavit from such persons to claim the existence of the said units. The adjudicating authority has held that the exporter cannot escape his responsibility under the Rules on the pretext that he was not involved in bogus transactions. These finding of lower authorities clearly establish that manufacturer and exporter are in hand and gloves and can be said as related having interest in each other and both parties are party in claiming the fraudulent rebate claim. 9.1 Applicant has also stated in the revision application that the trade practice was that deemed manufacturers/manufacturer would buy the grey fabrics and send it to processors for processing and then the processors shall return the processed fabrics to deemed manufacturers. As such the applicant also appears to be deemed manufacturers who has procured the goods from suppliers of grey fabrics and got it proces....