TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xemption under Notification No. 33/99, dated 8-7-1999. As per this notification, the goods were removed from factory under Central Excise Invoice on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty but whatever duty is paid in a month from PLA is refunded in the following month. There is no bar for the buyers to avail Cenvat credit or benefit of rebate in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is mentioned here that this Notification was amended vide Notification No. 37/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-9-2007 wherein it was stipulated that in respect of such goods this cannot be treated as duty paid for the purpose of granting rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules. It is also mentioned herein that as per C.B.E. & C. Instructions 209/11/2005-CX.-V dated 8-12-2006, it was already clarified that the term "DUTY PAID" used in Rule 18 does not include that portion of duty which is subsequently refunded to the manufacturer and rebate of said amount cannot be paid to the said manufacturer. This point was further clarified by Instructions dated 3-4-2007 wherein it was inter alia clarified that there is no bar on the units located in other parts of the country and manufacturing the goods and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 and similar other Notifications, mentioned in the said Instruction and does not cover those who purchased the goods from those manufacturers. The applicants in the instant case purchased their input material "Menthol", manufactured by M/s. Eldorado Holdings Pvt. Ltd. which is located at a place called Rangia, District Kamrup in the state of Assam, who availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999. In order to appreciate the background for issuing the said instruction dated 8-12-2006, it is necessary to understand the nature of the Exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 that was availed by M/s. Eldorado Holdings Pvt. Ltd. The Notification granted exemption for the goods specified in the First and Second Schedules to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and cleared from the units falling within specified areas/zones of North Eastern Region. The Notification provided benefit of exemption by way of refund to those new industrial units who have commenced their commercial production after he cut off date i.e. 24-12-1997 or to those industrial units which alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and export without availing benefit of area based exemption, but procure inputs from the manufacturers that availed area based exemption, are not entitled to the benefit of rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Rules. To dispel the confusions that possibly arose from the said Instruction dated 8-12-2006, C.B.E. & C. issued further instruction dated 3-4-2007 under F. No. 209/11/2005/CX.6 which the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider. 4.6 In the instant case, the applicants being located in the State of West Bengal and having not availed the benefit of area based exemption, the inputs received under the cover of duty paid invoices, cannot be treated as "non-duty paid" goods for them. This circular dated 8-12-2006 issued by C.B.E. & C. did not at all say that the manufacturers, who manufacture and export without availing benefit of area based exemption, but procure inputs from the manufacturers that availed area based exemption, are not entitled to the benefit of rebate under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Rules. 4.7 That the issue of the C.B.E. & C. Instru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of this case are not in dispute. Government notes that this claim as made in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was not found admissible on the ground that duty paid character of inputs which were cleared under Notification No. 32/99-C.E., and 33/99-C.E., both dated 8-7-1999 was not established. It is also a fact on record of the adjudication proceedings that as per budgetary changes on 28-2-2008, menthol was exempted from duty of Central Excise vide Notification No. 4/2008-C.E., dated 1-3-2008. The input rebate claim made in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 was rejected by adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Now applicant has filed this revision application on the grounds stated in para 4 above. 8. Applicant has mainly argued that Notification No. 37/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 17-9-2007 has amended Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and not the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 under which applicant has claimed rebate of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods, that the C.B.E. & C.....