TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). The applicants had exported goods i.e. tractors which attracted Nil rate of Central Excise Duty. The said gods were exported on ARE-2 forms under input rebate claim in terms of rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04. They filed rebate claim in the LTU, New Delhi of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of goods i.e tractors exported under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04. Show cause polices were issued to the applicant on the ground that the applicants have exported the goods under Advance Licence issued under Customs Notification No.93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04; that as per clause (v) of the Notification ibid the export obligation as specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; to appreciate Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004 (as amended) which has been issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 25 (2) grants total exemption from customs duty and additional duty on materials imported under the Advance Licence and used in the manufacture of article of exports of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the said exemption was conditional i.e. subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as mentioned in the said Notification. In other words, so long as the importer who wants to avail the benefit of said notification, the said importer is required to fulfil conditions as stipulated in the notification failing with the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 (as amended) providing for certain conditions and procedures to be followed as specified in the said Notification. Admittedly, applicant has complied with all the conditions-and procedures stipulated under the said Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 (as amended), Therefore, the rebate claim has been erroneously rejected. 4.5 The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that CBEC Manual in para 1.5 (Part V) clearly provides for the situations under which the benefits of input stage rebate cannot be claimed, which are as under: (a) Where the finished goods are exported under the claim for Duty Drawback. (b) Where the finished goods are exported in the discharged of expo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Kumar Puri, Joint General Manager of the applicant company appeared on behalf of the applicants and reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent department. 6. Government has considered oral and written submissions of the applicant as well as respondents, the available case records and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. Government observes that the applicant's rebate claims were- rejected by the original authority mainly on the ground that applicant exported the said goods In discharge of export obligation as specified in the Advance Licence and as per clause (v) of Notification No.93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04 as amended by corrigendum F.No.605/50/05-DBK da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the manufacture of impugned exported goods They had claimed the rebate of duty paid on said indigenous input/material under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002: In this regards, government notes that Advance Licence Scheme is governed by Customs Notification No. 93/04-Cus dated 10.09.04. The Conditions laid down in Para V of said Notification as amended vide Corrigendum dated 17.05,05 to Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.04 issued from F. No. 605/50/2005-DBK is as under ; " The export obligation as specified in the said licence i e Advance Licence (both in value and quantity terms) is discharged within the period specified in the said licence or within such extended period as may be granted by the licencing authority by exporting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e revision applications " 8.2 Government observes that ratio of above order is squarely applicable to these cases as facts of cases are identical. 8.3 The cases cited by the applicant are not applicable to the present case since none of the case laws pertain to the Not. No. 93/04-Cus dated 10.09.2004. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mihir Textile Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay 1997 (92) ELT(SC) that exemption/benefit depending upon satisfaction .certain. conditions cannot be granted unless such conditions are complied with even such conditions are only directory. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of M/s ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004(171) ELT 433 (SC) and in the case of M/s Paper Products Vs CCE 1999 (112) ELT....