TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty paid. The petitioners availed of Cenvat credit on such inputs, inasmuch as, they had paid for such credit in the purchase price of the goods. In the normal course of business, the petitioners also obtained certain inputs without payment of duty under the procedure prescribed under rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"). Rule 19 of the rules permits purchase of inputs required to be used for exporting the goods without payment of duty on following the procedure prescribed under Notification No.43/2001-C.E.(N.T.) dated 26.06.2001. The petitioners had also obtained certain inputs by following the said procedure under the rules. The first petitioner exports various kinds of pharmaceutical products. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") permits export of goods either without payment of duty or under bond under rule 19 of the rules or permits export of goods on payment of duty on the claim of rebate of duty paid under rule 18 of the rules. The petitioners exported their goods on payment of duty and not under bond. Since their exports were duty paid, the petitioners clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paragraphs 8.5 to 8.7 of the impugned order, to point out that the adjudicating authority has sought to distinguish the above referred decision of this court in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, and submitted that in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the decision of this court, the question of distinguishing the decision of this court did not arise. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned order being contrary to the law laid down by this court, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ankit Shah, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon the reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order and submitted that the same is just, legal and proper, and that there is no warrant for interference by this court. 6. The short question that arises in the present case is as to whether the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is contrary to the decision of this court in the case of Zenith Spinners v. Union of India (supra). It that be so, it was not permissible for the adjudicating authority to take a view different from that was taken by the jurisdictional High Court in the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entertaining the appeal, has not interfered with the decision of this court whereby the entire notification has been set aside. 10. In Zenith Spinners v. Union of India (supra) this court held thus: "10. Rule 18 of the Rules stipulates that where any goods are exported the exporter becomes entitled to rebate of duty which may be granted by way of a notification issued by the Central Government. The rebate is of duty paid on final products or duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture or processing of such final products viz. the goods which are exported. The notification is to contain such conditions or limitations and prescribe such procedure, upon fulfillment of which, the rebate shall be granted. Thus, on a plain reading Rule 18 provides a complete code by itself in relation to rebate of duty that an exporter can claim on export of goods. 11. Rule 19 of the Rules provides under Sub-rule (1) that an exporter may export final products which are liable to excise duty without payment of duty with the approval of the Commissioner. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 19 of the Rules makes a similar provision in relation to inputs which are used in the manufacture or processing of final product....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exercised by an exporter by use of the phrase as may be approved. If the interpretation which is placed on the provision by the respondent authorities by issuance of impugned Notification is accepted, it would not only take away the option granted to the exporter but also take away the discretion granted to the Commissioner by the Rule. It is settled position that by virtue of exercise of powers of issuing a notification which is for the purposes of imposing conditions, safeguards and procedure the authority cannot exceed the jurisdiction by providing for a situation which either restricts the rights granted under the Rule itself or make the Rule itself redundant. 15. It is not disputed that the original notification issued by CBEC under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of the Rules on 26th June, 2001 and made effective from 1st July, 2001 has been operating without any difficulty and nothing has been brought on record to show why the impugned amendment became necessary. At the cost of repetition it requires to be stated that nothing has been brought on record nor has the learned counsel been in a position to point out as to how and in what circumstances an exporter can claim double bene....