2015 (3) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase are that the applicant engaged in the manufacture of Glued Insulated Rail. The applicant had filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. During the course of preliminary scrutiny of the said claim, some discrepancies were noticed and the said claim was returned back to the applicant. The said claim was again filed by the applicant on the ground that they had undertook a contract for providing and fixing permanent way work at railway siding at Reliance SEZ, with Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., who are the developers of the SEZ. For the purpose of the execution of the said contract the Appellant purchased certain items on payment of Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ods to SEZ area under Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 and therefore, the procedure enumerated under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) was not required to be complied with. The goods exported were to be used in laying the track in SEZ area therefore; question of approval input-output ratio does not arise. 4.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to accept the argument that the C.B.E. & C. has already granted a general permission for claiming rebate of duty paid on goods procured from the market where it is possible to correlate the goods and their duty paid character. The appeal has been rejected mainly on the ground that the general permission was not placed before him by the applicant. Further it is submitted that the Commissioner (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... applicant purchased certain items from open market on payment of Central Excise duty and cleared the same to M/s. Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Ltd., a SEZ and filed rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. The original authority rejected the rebate claim mainly on the ground amongst others that no manufacturing activity was carried out by the applicant on goods purchased to qualify for rebate benefit in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the applicant. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Circular but failed to give any explanation about compliance of same. Therefore the essential condition of export of duty paid goods for claiming rebate of duty under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not fulfilled. As such said rebate claim was rightly held inadmissible. 8.2 The applicant also contended that the special procedure is prescribed for export of tea under claim of rebate in Chapter 8 of C.B.E. & C's Excise Manual of supplementary instructions wherein it is clearly provided that the procurement of goods from factory of a manufacture and from open market is also allowed under the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-4-2004. The applicant contended that the said special provision for tea is applicable for....