AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground that the appellant has not submitted the proof of documents of exports from the claimant's premises and also they have not produced sufficient evidence for the same. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), their appeal was rejected on the same ground. Hence the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that they are manufacturers of fabrics and clear majority of the goods to the garment manufacturers under Notification No. 43/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 as amended. As per the said notification, the manufacturer of garments has to fulfil the conditions stipulated under notification No. 43/2001 and got registered themselves before the central excise authority before procuring the goods duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y have certified that the fabrics were manufactured and exported under the shipping bills and quantity of fabrics utilised in the manufacture of garments and informed the non-claiming of duty draw-back along with details of shipping bills, No. and date of ARE-2, quantity utilised by the garment exporter. He relied on the following case laws in support of his contention. - SVM Textile Mills Vs. CCE, Coimbatore 2006 (199) ELT 270 (Tri.-Chen.) - Jain Textiles Industries Vs. CCE, Delhi-III 2009 (247) ELT 796 (Tri.-Del.) - Tribunal's Final Order No. 40551/2013 dated 08.11.13 in the case of Pioneer Processing Vs. CCE, Salem 4. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the Order-in-Original and para-4 of the Order-in-App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notifies the conditions, safeguards and procedures for procurement of the excisable [goods] without payment of duty for the purpose of use in the manufacture or processing of export goods and their exportation out of India, to any country, namely :- (i) the manufacturer or the processor intending to avail benefit of this notification shall register himself under rule 9 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001; The said notification clearly envisages that the manufacturer of garments intending to avail procurement of goods without payment of duty for the purpose of manufacture and their exportation out of India, subject to fulfilment of the conditions. There is also no dispute on the fact that the garment exporters are duly registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and were duly exported. The only question is that for claiming refund under Rule 5 read with Notification No.11/2002 in para-4. Condition No.4 of the notification stipulates that the appellant should submit the copy of shipping bill, export obligation, bill of lading, duly certified by the officer of customs. This condition is not applicable to the appellant as they have not exported directly but cleared duty free to the garment manufacturer by following the conditions under notification No. 43/2001 and also by following Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 and the garment exporter ultimately exported the goods. 6. Identical issue has been decided by this Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ween the raw material supplied and the goods exported and consequently between the raw material supplied and the Shipping Bills and ARE-2s. The raw materials get used in manufacture of different products and different products are exported under different Shipping Bills and therefore if the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction was not enforcing his responsibility as envisaged under Notification No. 43/2001, the assessees like the appellant cannot be penalized. It is also relevant that in this particular case, both the appellant and some of the persons procuring the goods were in the same jurisdiction but no effort was made to do any verification at the relevant time. After almost 10 years, I do not find it will serve any purpose by re....