TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er related documents for quantification of correct amount of refund? (2) Whether the CESTAT has the jurisdiction to decide the appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with sub-section 1(b) of Section 35B of the Act ibid and proviso thereto in the cases wherein goods have been exported out of India (except to Nepal and Bhutan) CEAC 11/2005 Page 2 of 7 without payment of duty?" 2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent - Assessee, which at the relevant time used to manufacture paints, varnishes and detergent powder, received substantial export orders from the USSR. It discharged its obligations, during the course of which it entered i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground and upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner. 3. The Assessee approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) which had passed the impugned order on 25.09.2003. The CESTAT accepted its plea and set aside the findings of the authorities below. The CESTAT held in favour of the Assessee on the issue of ineligibility on account of the DEEC Scheme. Although, this was the ground of appeal urged at the time the Revenue approached this Court, substantial arguments on this aspect had not been addressed, and the CESTAT's findings are as below: "13. As we note from the Order in Original no. 125/01, the first discrepancy/deficiency is that certain duty paying documents were not furnished. The lis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at in these circumstances the Government rejected its revision application. The learned counsel urges that regardless of the Central Government's position, proviso to Section 35B(1) (d) clearly states that orders which relate to exports without payment of duty are excluded from the ambit of the appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction. On the other issue, i.e., the permissibility of credit, it is urged that existing notifications including Notification No. 214 of 1986 did not expressly provide for MODVAT credit in respect of clearance from premises of job workers or third party's premises. This was permitted by Notification No. 18/99-CE (NT) dated 28.02.1999 which apparently amended Rule 57F(4). In the circumstances, since there was absence of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e question with respect to jurisdiction is concerned, it would be pertinent to extract the following observations and findings of the Central Government rejecting the Assessee's revision on 24.11.2003: "4. Govt. has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions. Govt. has also gone through the Orders-in-Original and Orders-in-Appeal. The applicant have not claimed rebate of duty on goods exported under Rule 12 or rebate of duty on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported under rule 12 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 but they have claimed refund of the credit of the specified duty in respect of inputs used in the final products cleared for export under bond or used in the intermediate pro....