TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision, Chennai-I Commissionerate. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that GMI are merchant exporters of M/s. United Metal Industries, Chennai -19, who are manufacturers of non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985. The impugned rebate claims were subject matter of earlier proceedings, where the then LAA had rejected the claims since the main manufacturer had not discharged the duty liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the LAA's order but observed that the LAA's decision that Rule 12 or the notifications issued thereunder would not apply to goods covered in the Compounded levy was not correct and to that extent, the impugned order was required to be set aside/modified. Against the said O-in-A, both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....F. No. 195/434/07-RA-CX) setting aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal No. 52/2007(M-I) and 6/2007(M-I)(D), dated 31-3-2007 and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the case on merit. 4. As directed by the Government, Personal Hearing was fixed, on 11-1-2012. Ms. Ramya, Advocate, authorized by GMI, appeared for personal hearing. None appeared from the department side despite intimation. However, the Department had given written submissions in respect of the impugned appeals. 4.1 During the hearing, Ms. Ramya, Advocate, reiterated the submissions made already in the appeal memorandum. In addition to the above she also submitted that granting of refund to her client which is altogether on a different ground shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be allowed even in cases where manufacturers make delayed payment." 5.3 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment in Omkar Overseas Ltd. v. UOI - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 167 (S.C.) cited by the applicants also support this view. The Hon'ble Apex Court had held that "The only ground on which the appellants have been denied rebate is that M/s. Gopi Synthetics(the manufacturer) had short paid duty. Even though M/s. Gopi Synthetics has since paid the duty and it has been finally held that there was no fraud, collusion or any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, rebate is being denied to the appellants. This is being done on the specious plea that it was the duty of the appellants, before he exported the goods, to see t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at rebate should not be restricted to only Rs. 300/- PMT. 5.7 Further, the main argument of the Department given in the written submission is that the period covered in the O-in-O Nos. 24/2005, 25/2005, 26/2005 and part amount covered under O-in-O Nos. 27/2005 were prior to 24-8-98. i.e. prior to the issue of Notification No. 31/98, dated 24-8-1998. But, this issue has already been dealt with by the LAA in the Orders-in-Original Nos. 24- 27/2005 wherein the LAA had observed as follows : "Thus finally Govt. of India allowed the rebate claim on the condition that the rebate has to be allowed in respect of the claims which are not hit by limitation, provided the duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme is fully discharged by the manufa....