TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h September, 2004 issued under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('CA') ("Notification No. 93") Background facts 2. The background facts are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of various models of tractors. The tractors which are so manufactured, are sold both in the domestic market and are also exported. The present petition involves models of tractors exported by the petitioner during the period 2006 to 2008. 3. The petitioner claimed rebate of duty by invoking Rule 18 of the CER, vide its letter dated 26th July, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Phagwara vide letter dated 28th October, 2004 approved the input/output norms declared by the petitioner, upon verification, for the purpose of claiming of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking goods out of India to a place outside India and includes shipment of goods as provision or stores for use on board a ship proceeding to a foreign port or supplied to a foreign going aircraft." 8. The relevant portion of the Notification No.93 reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts materials imported into India against an Advance Licence issued in terms of paragraph 4.1.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy (hereinafter referred to as the said licence) from the whole of the duty of customs lev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Kumar further submits that the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CEA') and the Customs Act, 1962 ('CA') are self-contained enactments. The availing of rebate duty by the petitioner under the CEA is not contingent upon any notification issued under the CA. Mr. Kumar refers to the order dated 24th February, 2014 of the RA and states that the RA has merely relied upon the earlier order being GOI Revision Order No.09-37/11-Cx dated 18th January, 2011 and reiterated the same reasoning as given in the said order. He also submits that the benefit given to an applicant under Rule 18 CER is not interlinked with any other benefit or licenses. However, the RA has held to the contrary. 11. Mr. Sanjeev Narula, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... broader canvas. A person, who has availed the benefit under Notification No.93, is doing so, under the clear understanding that the rebate of duty under Rule 18 CER would not be available. Analysis and Findings 14. It is the admitted position that the petitioner has availed the benefits under the Advance Authorizations by importing input material and exporting the manufactured goods. The petitioner has, thus, availed of the benefit of non-payment of customs duty on the whole of the imports which it made during the relevant period. The discharge of the Advance Authorizations given in favour of the petitioner was as per Notification No.93 of 2004. 15. The submission of the petitioner, that availing of the benefit under Rule 18 of CER is n....