TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....70,129/-. 2. The petitioner who is a manufacturer of 100% Organic Cotton Yarn had exported goods during August to September 2009 and filed a rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claim filed by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,70,129/- was sought to be denied by the Deputy Commissioner by issuing show cause notice dated 31-5-2010. 3. The show cause notice proceeded on the assumption that the exported goods namely 100% Organic Cotton Yarn manufactured and exported by the petitioner was exempted from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. 4. The rebate claim was eventually rejected by the original authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... liable to be dismissed. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue also submits that the revision petition filed by the Revenue in Valli Textile Mills pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal by CESTAT has answered the issue in favour of the Revenue in the context of the very same notifications which are subject matter of the present writ petition. He drew my attention to the Paragraph 9.2 which is reproduced below : "9.2. The sub-rule (3) (i) & (ii) of Rule 11 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 clearly stipulates that if a manufacturer opts for exemption from whole of duty of excise leviable on the said final product under a Notification issued under Section 5A of the Act or the said final product has been exempted absolutely under Section 5A of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... writ petition is infructuous. However, there are no documents to substantiate the same at this point of time. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that no further orders have been passed pursuant to the remand. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents. 10. The petitioner has exported 100% Organic Cotton Yarn which are classifiable under sub-heading No. 5205.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There are two notifications exempting the said Organic Cotton Yarn. The petitioner claims to have paid excise duty at a concessional rate in terms of Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 at 4%. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id notification the notification does not apply to goods in respect of which credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 16. The petitioner has opted to pay Excise duty in terms of the Notification No. 29/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004. Therefore, it cannot be said that the organic cotton yarn exported by the petitioner was not liable to Excise duty so as to deny the benefit of rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 17. Notification No. 30/2004 is a conditional notification which allows the manufacturer to clear the goods at nil duty provided no credit is availed on inputs of capital goods under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. ....