2014 (4) TMI 1055

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el Engines. Certain Diesel Engines were exported and the petitioner submitted two rebate claims for duty drawback on custom to the tune of Rs. 1,02,242/- and 84,441/- on 4-3-2008 through respective Bills. The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise served a notice dated 22-4-2008 upon petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why his claim be not rejected inasmuch the benefit of input stage rebate, where finished goods are exported under claim for duty drawback, is not admissible vide para 1.5(i) part-V of Chapter 8 of CBE&C's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions. Petitioner submitted reply dated 28-4-2008 stating that if the exporter claims duty drawback of excise duty, then rebate claim of Excise duty is not permissible, but that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Excise Duty paid on the inputs", therefore, the words "claim for duty drawback" shall also have to be read in relation to the "Central Excise Duty paid on the inputs" and shall have to be interpreted accordingly. From the reading of the entire provision, I find that the restriction for availment of duty drawback has been imposed in respect of Central Excise Duty. For determining the fact as to whether the appellant has availed drawback of Central Excise Duty or not, the shipping bills filed by the appellant are required to be examined. On perusal of the shipping bills filed by the appellant, I have noticed that the exported goods have been classified under CSH No. 84089090 of the CETYA, 1985 and the drawback has been sanctioned @ 1.3% a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....envat facility has been availed" refer to the drawback allowable under the Customs component. The difference between the two columns refers to the Central Excise and Service Tax component of drawback. If the rate indicated is the same in both the columns, it shall mean that the same pertains to only Customs component and is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat or not." In this case, the drawback rates mentioned in both the column is 1.3% which means that the drawback pertains to Customs component only. Thus the appellant's submission that they did not claim drawback in respect of Central Excise component is correct. It has clearly been mentioned in the said condition that the drawback in respect to Customs c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be claimed if the finished goods are exported under claim of duty drawback. The said provision does not differentiate the drawback into excise portion and Customs portion and restricts the availment of input stage rebate, if the export of finished goods has been done under claim for drawback. In the instance case, the respondent has exported the goods under Duty Drawback and hence, they are not entitled for rebate as inputs. 10. Therefore, Government, going for the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case (i) ITC Ltd. v. CCE [2004 (171) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)] and (ii) Paper Products Ltd. v. C.C. [1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.)] is of the considered opinion that the plain and simple wordings of the (clarified/stipulated) statute are ....