2022 (9) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch, on the allegation that no manufacturing process had been undertaken. 2. Bereft of unnecessary facts, what is required to be placed on record, is that Appellant was engaged in the manufacturing of parts used for installation of dish antenna, towers, eartphing etc. and during the Departmental Audit it was noticed that 5 items namely copper strips, cables, lights, copper fasteners and paints which had not undergone any process of manufacturing within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were exported as such, for which demand for return of CENVAT Credit of Rs.11,81,724/- availed by it was made to the Appellant through a show-cause notice dated 19.03.2015. In the first round of litigation that went upto the Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted judicial decisions reported in 2011 (270) ELT 49 (Kar.) in the case of CCE, Mangalore Vs. Mangalore Refineries & Petrochemicals Ltd. concerning exclusion of appellate jurisdiction of High Court and judgement reported in 2011 (21) STR 76 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of Sudarshan Suiz Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II concerning direction of this Tribunal to list the appeal before the Division Bench in respect of rate of duty involved in GTA services. His contention is unacceptable for two reasons - (i) it is a settled principle of law that has found acceptance in several decisions of the Writ Courts including the one of Hon'ble Kerala High Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Ker.) 269 that jurisdiction being preliminary iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l goods to export." Ultimately he concluded that as Appellant had not sought for rebate under Rule 18 it was required to reverse the CENVAT Credit in the alternative. However, Going by the alternate plea made in the appeal memo at para 3.1 it would make it quite clear that even if inputs are assumed to have been cleared as such, they are duty paid excisable goods which were cleared under bond in terms of Notification issued under Rule 19 which does not provide for reversal of credit of duty paid on such exported excisable goods because legislative intent was to promote export of goods and not export of taxes. This submissions is further strengthen and supplemented with reference to the reliance placed by the Appellant in the relevant case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decision of this Tribunal reported in 2010 (253) ELT 428 (Tri.-Del.) in the case of R.F.H. Metals Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I and 1999 (112) ELT 1027 (Tri.-Mum.) in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Telco Ltd. and argued that retention of credit on inputs exported under bond and its availability to the exporter even without an acceptable definition of manufacturer was held in favour of the assesee. Elaborating the decision of this Tribunal at Chennai, that was referred on the jurisdiction issue, he also submitted that in the said judgment reported in Bala Handlooms Exports Co. Ltd. cited supra the Tribunal had given a clear finding that Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules also provided for r....