TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by a common order as the issue involved is identical in all of them. 2. Some of the appellants are exporters of excisable goods, against advance licences so procured by them from DGFT. The said advance licences are subsequently invalidated, against which they can procure inputs from the indigenous manufacturers, without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules. As the exporters have procured inputs from the other suppliers who have cleared the goods on payment of duty, instead of clearing the same without payment of duty in terms of the above notification and against the invalidated licences, Revenue had initiated proceedings against all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustries Limited stand confirmed against them along with imposition of penalties upon them as also on the input suppliers. 4. It stands strongly argued before us that Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.) is a procedural notification issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules and the same cannot be pressed upon the raw material suppliers. The input suppliers are free to exercise their option to avail or not to avail the benefit of the said notification and to use the invalidated advance licences, so procured by them, for import of the duty free raw materials. The duty admittedly stand paid by the said raw material suppliers, in which case it would be available as credit to M/s. Balkrishna Industries Limited. It is well settled law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sides. There is no dispute that appellants had taken invalidation letter/ARO. These documents were handed over to the suppliers who in turn would have taken the benefit available to them. These have not been cancelled or withdrawn by the appellants. However, it is also observed from the impugned orders itself that the suppliers have not availed the refund of terminal excise duty. We also find from the documents submitted along with the appeal papers that the suppliers have in the relevant years paid very substantial duty from PLA and, therefore, the Revenue's contention regarding shifting of credit does not hold water. We have asked the ld. AR to show any specific provisions under Central Excise law requiring the appellants to clear th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un Polymers Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Daman reported in 2009 (241) E.L.T. 250 (Tri.-Ahmd.). The appeal filed by the Revenue against the said decision before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was rejected, though on a technical ground. 7. We note that when the above decision of the Tribunal was brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Authority he choose not to follow the same by observing as under :- ".....During the personal hearing on 17th May, 2013, the Advocate Shri Prakash Shah who appeared on behalf of the main noticee also relied on the order dated 5-4-2013 of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Oleofine Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Thane. These orders have also been relied upon by some co-noticees. I ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid circular. For better appreciation, we reproduce the same :- Policy Circular No. 16 (RE-2012)/2009-14, dated 15-3-2013 To, All Regional Authorities All Development Commissioners, SEZ. Subject : Clarification regarding TED Refund where TED exemption is available. It has come to the notice of this Directorate that some RAs of DGFT and the Offices of Development Commissioners of SEZ are providing refund of TED even in those cases where supplies of goods, under deemed exports, is ab initio exempted. 2. There are three categories of supplies where supply of goods, under deemed exports, are ab initio exempted from payment of excise duties. These are as follows : (i) Supply of goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s entitled to avail the credit of duty "paid" by the input manufacturer and the assessments at his end cannot be reopened on the ground that input supplier should not have paid duty in which case the credit of the same would be available to the manufacturer/exporter. Reference can be made to the decisions in the cases of :- (i) CCE & Cus. v. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.); (ii) CCE, Chennai-I v. CEGAT, Chennai reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 753 (Mad.); (iii) MDS Switchgear Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Aurangabad reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 405 (Tri. - Mumbai); (iv) CCE, Goa v. Nestle India Ltd. reported in 2012 (275) E.L.T. 49 (Bom.); (v) ....