TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period under dispute the Applicant had exported Forged Steel Balls of Alloy Steel falling under Chapter 732620 and Forged Steel Balls of Stainless Steel ball falIing under CSH, 732621. 2.1 The Applicant prior to 30.9.2011, was exporting the said products under DEPB Scheme. However, after the withdrawal of DEPB scheme w.e.f. 1.10.2011, the Applicant started export under claim of drawback (AIR) in terms of Notification No.68/2011-CUS (NT) dt. 22.9.2011. As per the above notification, the duty drawback rates for Alloy Steel and Stainless Steel are as under: Tariff item Description Drawback when Cenvat facility has not been availed Drawback when Cenvat credit facility has been availed &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2012, wherein it was alleged that as per para 15 of Notification No.68/2011-CUS (NT) the exporter has to produce the certificate that they had not availed the cenvat credit facility. Since in the instant claim no such certificate was produced, the Applicant was required to show cause to why the rebate claim of Rs. 36, 13, 148/- should not be rejected since they had availed double benefit i.e. claimed drawback as well as cenvat credit. Subsequently, vide impugned order-in-original, the original authority rejected the rebate claim on above ground. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-original applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g her mind to the fact that drawback was already sanctioned to the Applicant. If the Applicant had claimed more drawback than what is legally due to them then Customs authorities would not have sanctioned drawback to them. 4.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in traveling beyond the show cause notice. The show cause notice was issued to the Applicant only on the ground that they had availed dual benefit i.e. duty drawback and cenvat facility, The Commissioner Appeals) has accepted the contention of the Applicant that once the duty drawback rates are same whether they claimed cenvat credit or not, they are entitled to claim duty drawback since it pertains to customs duty only. Therefore, after accepting the same, she should not have rej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mponent 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 3.4.2014 was attended by Shri D.K.Singh, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. The applicants further vide their submissions dated 21.1.2013 and 3.4.2014 mainly reiterated contents of grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. Government observes that the applicants exported the goods namely "forged steel-balls made of alloy steel" and "forged steel balls made of stainless, steel" under claims of rebate. The applicant also claimed AIR of drawback. The original autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; "8.5 The respondents have exported the impugned goods under calm of drawback and respondents rebate claims were rejected on this ground only by the adjudicating authority. On this issue, Govt. would observe that the respondent claimed and received drawback of customs duty portion and this cannot be basis for demo of rebate of Central Excise Duty on the goods removed for export as clarified vide Circular No.203/43/96-CX., dated 9.5.96 issued by CBEC." This position has also been accepted by the appellate authority in para (c) of the impugned order-in-appeal, wherein it has been held that: &....