TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolhapur-II Division, Kolhapur Commissionerate, Kolhapur. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant M/s. Amit Spinning Industries Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Polyester Cotton Blended Yarn falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; that the applicants were clearing their final products without payment of duty availing exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004; that the applicants were not availing credit of inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of their final products and that the applicants had purchased polyester staple fibre on payment of appropriate duties and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The Government of India in the case of In Re : CCE, 2006 (200) E.L.T. 175 (G.O.I.) has dealt with exactly similar objection and has concluded that the rebate claimed of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exported goods should not be rejected merely for not filing of the declaration and input/output norms prescribed under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the C. EX. (No. 2) Rules, 2001 [now Notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y that quantity of polyester staple fibre which is actually used in or in relation to the manufacture of exported polyester cotton yarn and the said documentary evidence is not declared as wrong or unreliable by the Asst. Commissioner, C. EX., Kolhapur. In such circumstances, when the purpose behind the conditions of filing declaration/input-output ratio/issue of ARE-2 is served inasmuch as there is no doubt/dispute about the fact that the rebate claimed by them is of correct duty. For mere non-filing of declaration/getting approved the input/output ratio and issuing ARE-1 instead of ARE-2, they should not be deprived of the substantial benefit of rebate since it will be totally in violation of the Government's intention of boosting exports....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reiterated grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government notes that applicant exported Polyster cotton blended yarn under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/200l-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 on ARE-1 forms. The said ARE-1 forms were endorsed with remark read as "Export under NIL Rate of duty vide Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. After exporting goods in Jan. & Feb., 2011, they realized that they were entitled for refund of duty paid on inputs viz., polyster staple fibre, and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise Manual on Supplementary Instructions, the input-output norms notified under Export-Import Policy may be accepted by department unless there are specific reasons for variation. Under such circumstances, Government finds that the input-output ratio, as per input-output ratio specified in SION or the approval granted by department for subsequent exports can be accepted. 9. Government observes that rebate claims were also rejected on ground that original and duplicate AREs-2 duty certified by Customs were not submitted as they had exported goods on ARE-1 forms. In regard Government observes that Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in its judgments dated 24-4-2013 in the case of M/s. U.M. Cables v. UOI (WP No. 3102/2013 & 3103/2013) re....