On receipt of the aforesaid rebate claims, the Department issued show cause numberice dated January 11, 2005 whereby the assessee was called upon to show cause as to why the rebate claimed by the assessee be number rejected as it was companytrary to the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules read with Section 11B of the Act and the Notification issued thereunder, i.e., Notification No.
This writ petition has been decided in favour of the Revenue whereby the view taken by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India is reversed and that of Commissioner Appeals is upheld holding that out of the two excise duties, Rule 18 of the Rules permits rebate only qua one of them and number on the both duties.
After companysidering the reply that was given by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Nagpur rejected the rebate of duty paid on the final product exported as well as the claim of rebate of duty paid on inputs companytained therein by passing Order in original dated January 28, 2005.
The appellant assessee, in this appeal, is engaged in the manufacturing of polyester companyton blended yarn and polyester viscose blended yarn and both these products fall under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
This appeal was decided by orders dated March 15, 2005 holding that in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules, the assessee is entitled to one of the two claims for rebate, i.e., either rebate of duty paid on exported goods or the duty paid on inputs used in the exported goods, and number on both of them.
Still number satisfied with this partial relief given by the Commissioner Appeals , as the assessee wanted rebate on both types of excise duties paid, the assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner Appeals by filing Revision Application before the Joint Secretary to the Government of India under Section 35EE of the Act.
The assessee had exported these goods on payment of central excise duty in the CENVAT account and, thereafter, filed as many as forty five rebate claims amounting to ?
For manufacture of the aforesaid product, the assessee had used the raw material which was an intermediate product and paid excise duty thereupon.
He, thus, remitted the case back to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the claim of the assessee after granting personal hearing to the assessee and taking its option as to which of the two claims assessee wanted to prefer.
A manufacturer exporter can either export the said goods without payment of duty by executing a bond to the effect that goods are meant for export and would be actually exported and also undertakes to satisfy other stipulated companyditions, to earn the exemption from payment on excise duty.
The final products were also cleared on payment of excise duty on those finished products.
This Revision Application of the assessee was decided in its favour as the Joint Secretary held that the assessee was entitled to rebate both on the exported goods as well as inputs used in the exported goods.
It was number the turn of the Department to feel dissatisfied with the aforesaid outcome and, therefore, it challenged the aforesaid revisional order by filing the writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
These rebate claims were filed under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
Special Leave Petition against this judgment of the Bombay High Court was preferred by the assessee in which leave was granted.
19/2004 CE NT dated September 06, 2004.
Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise Appeals , Nagpur.
71,48,508/ in the months of November and December, 2004 respectively.
1,46,90,995/ ?
75,42,487/ ?
