2013 (11) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gar imported and they exported the white sugar so manufactured through a merchant exporter by name M/s. Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. At the time of export the applicant paid excise duty on the final product and cleared the goods for export through a merchant exporter. The merchant exporter claimed rebate of such excise duty paid on the final product. Revenue was of the view that as per condition (v) of Notification No.93/2004, no rebate could have been claimed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on goods exported in discharge of the export obligation imposed under Notification No. 93/2004-Cus. According to Revenue such rebate availed contravened post-import conditions in the notification and therefore Revenue proposed confiscation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f resultant product) or rule [19(2)] of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been availed;    (Provided that an Advance Intermediate Licence holder shall discharge export obligation by supplying the resultant products to ultimate exporter in terms of sub-para (b) of para 4.1.1. for the said Export and Import Policy."    (The portion as highlighted above has been incorporated through the corrigendum dated 17-05-2005) According to the learned senior counsel, the rebate claimed is of the duty paid on the final product and not duty paid on raw material used in manufacture. He points out that they had paid such duty and there is nothing in the notification which prohibits claiming rebate of such duty paid. He also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gill India Pvt. Ltd. Before discharge of export obligation and therefore the said exemption is not available to the applicant. The learned AR for Revenue also submits that the goods exported were in packed condition and packing was done by the merchant exporter in his premises and for that reason also the benefit cannot be extended. Hence he argues that the applicant should be put to some terms of deposit for admission of the appeal. 5. The learned AR did not deny the issue of the Corrigendum which corrected clause (v) of Notification No. 93/2004. 6. Considered submissions on both sides. None of the provisions quoted by the learned AR shows any explicit condition that the goods should be exported by the person importing the goods hims....