TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts lapsed on 9-7-2009, therefore the amounts paid by the applicant while exporting the goods cannot be treated as duty of Excise and such an attempt was to encash the lapsed Cenvat credits. 3. On being aggrieved, the applicant filed appeals before the jurisdictional 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 mainly on the following grounds : 4.1 The applicant has taken credits against inputs used in exported goods. The statutory records, Range Superintendent's report and Show Cause Notice itself confirms the same. The Column 10 in the five ARE-1s filed with Department also contained declaration that credit was taken vide various Debit entry. The same are there in ARE-1 No. 11, dated 11-7-2006 containing Debit Entry No. 79, ARE-1 No. 11, dated 30-7-2005 containing Debit Entry No. 85, ARE-1 No. 18, dated 30-9-2005 containing Debit Entry No. 119, ARE-1 No. 33, dated 28-1-2006 containing Debit Entry No. 225, ARE-1 No. 44, dated 30-3-2006 containing Debit Entry 282 and RG-23. Thus there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. Whereas the adjudicating authority held in para 7 that Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 was opted. There is no question of such option as we have taken Cenvat credit on inputs. Relied upon case laws are :- (i) CCE, Raigad v. Bhagirath Agro Plast Ltd. - 2008 (226) E.L.T. 232 (Tri. Mum.) (ii) S. Narendrakumar & Co. v. CCE, Mumbai-III - 2009 (245) E.L.T. 204 (Tri.-Mum.) (iii) Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad - 2009 (247) E.L.T. 498 (Tri.- Mum.). 4.5 The Board's Circular No. 510/06/2000-CX, dated 3-2-2000 vide File No. 209/29/99-CX. 6, Paras 2 and 3 give directions that the rebate sanctioning authority should not examine the correctness of assessment but should examine only the admissibility of rebate of the duty paid on the export goods covered by claim. In the rebate sanctioning authority finds some irregularities than he shall inform, after granting the rebate, the jurisdictional Assistant/Deputy Commissioner. Further Board's Circular No. 224/37/2005-CX. 6, dated 24-12-2008 at Para 3.7 prescribes the functions of Range Officer of Centr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvat. Department accepted the revenue as duty which was paid by us. Applicant submits that the department denied to sanction the claim saying that duty paid is not duty of Central Excise. Applicant submits that Rule of Estoppel applies here since department allowed payment of duty and also accepted it and should not take stand that rebate cannot be claimed against exported duty paid goods. Department shall not blow hot and cold in the same breath. Department cannot approbate and reprobate. This is impermissible in law. 4.9 The adjudicating authority considered at Para 10 of impugned order under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 and Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. In the present case there is no absolute exemption as contemplated in Section 5A. We had taken credit, hence the bar imposed in the said Notification by proviso applies here. The adjudicating authority considered at Para 10 in the finding that main input was grey fabrics was exempted on which credit was not taken. Exempted grey fabrics along with duty-paid chemicals and dyes were exported. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Repro I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Order-in-Original). The applicants has produced documentary evidences as to availment of credits on inputs such as dyes, chemicals, etc. which is not disputed and even the same is reported by the Range Superintendent, except the input grey fabrics which is exempted vide Notification No. 9/96-C.E., dated 23-7-1996 (as amended), copy of which is attached herewith for your reference. Therefore, Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 is not applicable in the instant case. As such, the applicants are illegible to refund of duty as paid on goods exported. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 28-6-2012 and 8-8-2012. Shri R.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel, appeared on 8-8-2012 on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the respondent department. 6. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of the respondent and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. Government notes that the applicant as manufacturer exporter have cleared and exported various varieties of woven fabrics falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff on payment of Central E....