TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction outside the country had been rejected. The total rebate claim was Rs. 1,58,89,518/- being equivalent at the time of their import into the country. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an international manufacturer of electronic goods, i.e. coloured television sets, air conditioner, computer monitors etc. falling under Chapter 84-85 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. During the period 2007-08, it had imported certain LCD panels and parts used in manufacture of coloured televisions from outside the country. On such imports, it had paid custom duties; additional custom duties and countervailing duty. By virtue of Rule 3 (vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, the petitioner became entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the countervailing duty so paid, upto the amount specified under those Rules. 4. The petitioner made use of LCD panels and parts in the manufacturing activity conducted by it at its factory at Noida. However, owing to its business arrangements, some of those imported LCD panels and parts were not subjected to manufacturing activity inside the country but the same were re-exported to other manufacturing locations outside the coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion had been exported from the factory of the petitioner. As to the payment of duty, it has been submitted that the payment of amount equal to the CENVAT credit availed under the CENVAT Rule (at the time of import) was payment of duty, inasmuch as that reversal of CENVAT was nothing but payment of countervailing duty which was equivalent to the central excise duty. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is no requirement of actual manufacture as a pre-condition of grant of rebate inside the country under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with relevant notification No.19/2004. Such a condition, therefore, can never be introduced by implication or by any interpretatiive process. Then referring to the pre-existing MODVAT Rules and the Circular No.283/117/96 dated 31.12.1996 issued thereunder, it has been submitted Rule 57 F (1) (ii) of the pre-existing MODVAT Rules was pari materia to Rule 3 (5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 under that preexisting Rule, circular dated 31.12.1996, was issued by the Central Government. Thereunder, for grant of rebate in case of such re-export of goods, there was no condition of actual manufacture. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts or capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 9." 10. Also, Clause 2 of notification No.19 of 2004 dated 6.9.2004 read as below: "(2) Conditions and limitations:- (a) that the excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty, directly from a factory or warehouse, except as otherwise permitted by the Central Board of Excise and Customs by a general or special order; (b) the excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture or warehouse or within such extended period as the Commissioner of Central Excise may in any particular case allow; (c) that the excisable goods supplied as ship's stores for consumption on board a vessel bound for any foreign port are in such quantities as the Commissioner of Customs at the port of shipment may consider reasonable; (d) the rebate claim by filing electronic declaration shall be allowed from such place of export and such date, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; (e) that the market price of the excisable goods at the time of exportation is not less than the amount of rebate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., only the conditions and limitations provided under the excise notification remained to be fulfilled. Here, in view of the fact that it is again undisputed that the CENVAT Credit availed had been reversed in entirety under Rules of 2004, the goods that were excisable goods clearly came to be exported after payment of duty. There is no dispute to the fact that they were exported directly by the petitioner to its other manufacturing units outside the country. 14. The objection raised by the revenue-respondent that the export must have been made after manufacture, is not substantiated by the statutory provisions. The words a 'factory' used in clause 2 (a) of the rebate notification only refers to the fact that the goods must be exported from a premises that is a 'factory'. Again, the term 'factory' has not been defined under Rules under Section 2 (e) of the Act. It reads:- "(e) "factory" means any premises, including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured, or wherein or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinar....