TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 176
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h for domestic market as well as for export and the excise duty leviable thereon was 16%. By a notification No.29/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004 the petitioner was granted relief in the excise duty payable in so much as the same was limited to 4%. By another notification of the same date bearing No. 30/2004-CE, the petitioner was granted total exemption from payment of duty on the products manufactured by it, subject to the condition that no credit is taken on the inputs consumed in the manufacture of the final product. 3. However, as regards the goods exported, the petitioner did not take benefit of the above mentioned exemption notifications and paid duty @ 16% through actual credit/deemed credit account. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same in view of the decision of CESTAT in the case of Bharat Chemicals v. CCE Thane reported as 2004 (170) E.L.T. 568, and on the strength of Circular No.687/3/2003-CX, dated 3.1.2003 which lays down as under:- " xx xx &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03(151)E.L.T. 5, Hico Products Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise -1994 (71) E.L.T. 339, Priya Blue Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)- 2004 (172) E.L.T.145, and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285. On the strength of these judgments he has argued that once it is admitted that the petitioner was entitled to the rebate of duty the said rebate was liable to be allowed as cash and it was not open to the respondents to refund some part of it by way of cenvat account. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the orders of the government and states that the present writ petition be dismissed. 9. After giving our anxious consideration to the entire matter,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h v. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd (supra) it was held that a benefit available to the assessee to claim could not be thrust upon him against his wishes. The said case dealt with the distinction of short levy and lesser collection of duty because of adjustment and in that context it was held that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which dealt with recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded- would not be applicable. In our opinion, the said judgment has no application to the present case. 12. In the case of Hico Products Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise (supra), the dispute was whether the products of the appellant fell within item 15A or 68 of the Central Excise ....