• 3T1-z3Th-174 (31111-6.-V) ttrzr bc-LIKTI 2.tech *

, S, £f 3c-t-11 2te-ct)

1411 achP cb urR, arrTrarqrt, — 380015

VTR : 079 -26305065 Ff : 079 - 26305136

•Li -d 51ch g NI

tbTO tk..c.t1 I File No : V2(52)11to29/Ahd-1/2012

Stay App.:NA

311c 31rktzr ‘(-icszli Order-In-Appeal No.23to41/2012(Ahd-1)CE/MM/Commr(A)/Ahd

it-rici-) Date : 26.03.2012 -1qt MtfUi Date of Issue 2 S 1 3 1 ) 42 --

5M-44 4-ifZvicoi 416 37sor Ort-6.-V) tITRU

Passed by Smt. Mallika Mahajan, Commissioner (Appeal-V)

TT 317E47, *-41-4 31--6ffq-Km--I 311 Ttcl1c1 g171 rt'r

11-F 311kU

Arising out of Order-in-Original No.As per order Dated . As per order

Issued by: A.C. Commissioner,Central Excise,lAhmedabad-I.

314r6M—df TT Licii Name & Address of the Appellant / Respondent

Ashima Dyecot Ltd.

Ahmedabad

• 4,14. arftff 't-f 31111F 31rtvr 31 f 31TTq (t)c-11 c16 *‘t-f 31TtZT of TiqrR-21-ft

Tr u4i 31-14--rt <1,1 311)-7 lir 1i-9-tam w?j-ff ,ericodi Any person a aggrieved by this Order-In-Appeal may file an appeal or revision application, as

the one may be against such order, to the appropriate authority in the following way :

ITRU *No vt r ptEuT 31a-4-ff Revision application to Government of India :

• (1)'4)----41-z1 \O-11q.-1 cT 31Rff4ZFT, 1994 c q- HT 31-d-d --.dT7 I 91+1 •1 . W. 1:047ff URI ct)

311--URT Air es 3f ii-9-traTur 311 31Z-149 '4T17 1-k1d 'fl ‘3W-I

121'r ,1141, : 110001 4 - "1- T-ft.7 I

(I) A revision application lies to the Under Secretary, to the Govt. of India, Revision Application Unit

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, 4 th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New

Delhi - 110 001 under Section 35EE of the CEA 1944 in respect of the following case, governed by first

. proviso to sub-section (1) of Section-35 ibid :

1-11c1 7[ ■314 T c.1)1 f+-41 ITcWril7 zrr ct,111 ,) -4 7i

f+-71)' 'ITIFFIR 74 1.11 1T7 A uiic) 4-11 4 1 ?Tr -EU I

qr qTaurn-R- Trm gf --zri- rR-m

(ii) In case of any loss of goods where the loss occur in transit from a factory to a warehouse or to another factory or from one warehouse to another during the course of processing of the goods in a

warehouse or in storage whether in a factory or in a warehouse.

() f TIT vkzr LiPc-t tfr AM' ur --c[zitrr

TIFF tF \3N1q-1 TrFr- ITRT Tir q--zr t

\ONE R (App

„

•

o *

(b) In case of rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India of on excisable material used in

the manufacture of the goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India.

(TT) Tr-d-r9- *F49-r 71-rTa 4I-67 (EITR Trr Ird-m q)) ft-tr ,igi c er! (C) In case of goods

exported outside India export to Nepal or Bhutan, without payment of duty. \lc-91q-1 urraff 4 t 3Trtvr UTRT 74 ft4rf Td-rf4-w 3ITTJ4ff, 3111-F rR TIT GI lq cr aitrftzp:r M.2) 1998 URI 109 5 N I ff ff ,1T7 efl

(d) Credit of any duty allowed to be utilized towards payment of excise diity on final products under the provisions of this Act or the Rules made there under and such order is passed by

the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after, the date appointed under Sec.109 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998.

(1) Th---41-zr (3111)ftwfr0---A, 2001 f4TP=1 9 ftfkffiz W44 Titqff

of T

1 3

-7-8 t iitTft 14, Ri-d arr--vr 3Tra-s-r 9N-r qtr-d7 7-4- 31-4R 3TrkZT 4 t—tr 6 -4 -frq ulWu 1 -zfr 1-1=8-q1 3-TrzT TfIrd -r ff-c-qrtEi 3i-d-rfiu zrru 35— "ItZTOff '171.-dT9. TITeT t3ITT-6 1101.1 4 ert -Ti=p I The above

application shall be made in duplicate in Form No. EA-8 as specified under Rule, 9 of Central Excise

(Appeals) Rules, 2001 within 3 months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated and shall be accompanied by two copies each of the 010 and Order-In-Appeal. It should also be accompanied by a copy of TR-6 Challan evidencing

payment of prescribed fee as prescribed under Section 35-EE of CEA, 1944, under Major Head of Account.

(2) TiT21- ZIT 3fftf TIT 200 / — ibte TidT9- ul I 3tR u16'1 -r-gt 3-4 ,,,241q1 f c l000/— 4 itm yr-d-r9- 4

The revision application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.200/- where the amount involved

is Rupees One Lac or less and Rs.1,000/- where the amount involved is more than Rupees One Lac.

AT4Tr 31-111"I flzirrq-wm 311fre- Appeal to Custom, Excise, & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(1) Th"--4Rf \30-11q-f rr1 3T-rft -ali, 1944 c6) URI 35-4/35-4

Under Section 35B/ 35E of CEA, 1944 an appeal lies to :-

.(T) q ,ficfrm Icq4ict).-r R-1 3f-4.Rrff Atm \30-11q-i 74. 31-04rEl fraltrwT:rf chl f464 tirrd-wr 3. 3T R. -91

the special bench of Custom, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal of West Block No.2,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-1 in all matters relating to classification valuation and.

(a)

*

tIC. Cl

3

(7) 3-0TfrAtfff 1:04q 2 (1) 4--dT7 N-1E17 t 3141-F, 311( 71.11iT \--4171

71- 'i)cilct) rrzri-RFTRlir 1-0479* 31'1-20,

61R-Litei vim , 31-61=W4N-380016.

(b) To the west regional bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at 0-20, New Metal Hospital Compound, Meghani Nagar, Ahmedabad : 380 016. in case of

appeals other than as mentioned in para-2(i) (a) above.

(2) *Itzl ∎30-41 -1 (3T F) fq4-iici(41, 2001 UTRT 6 31-dta 14 F440. fkR 317117

31101-4 -41RA44-)A Tr-4 41q alTtZI L1 TIN gftzti Titu wcriq

TriTr, wrr- *Tr 3117 4v11 TQTR 5 -a-f- 1 ITT 311 4b 4-1 t 46i loon / —

I \3161 111-11- 31)-R.-a-/TRIT Tall ■314 11 ,11 5 aTG 7,11 50 c -F-G

5000/— thti trt I vi61 -zj- • 4 4-0 4 1, (T Thct 411 4 1 3f1 7rzn-

TO9TT 50'Fl3T1 ZfT \34-1.4) u4A1q1 10000 / - IR{ '474i tft I 4 mem 41•4-dN

ycr .r-4 446 Tcrd \3‘41 1 iW(

t1T 71TUT ■3161 \3411 iRnfur tra 13-Qm t I 7

500/ - 4-A1 6)4t I '

The appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be filed in quadruplicate in form EA-3 as prescribed under Rule 6 of Central Excise(Appeal) Rules, 2001 and shall be accompanied against (one which at least should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- where amount of duty / penalty / demand I refund is upto 5 Lac, 5 Lac to 50 Lac and above 50 Lac respectively in the form of crossed bank draft in favour of Asstt. Registar of a branch of any nominate public sector bank of the place where the bench of any nominate public sector bank of the place where the bench of the Tribunal is situated. Application made for grant of stay shall

be accompanied by a fee of Rs.500/-.

TIR i 311tv 4,4 tri 311-424 (t)i Ti-9-r4T -V 81)774 f fa thti 401 ISTffiq AWE

__ wqr -ffrft-R tug f$ 4-81 'WO Tv-RN-ft 3R1R-11-4

aT ^z11 _11 31141-F

itTrr t I

In case of the order covers a number of order-in-Original, fee for each 0.1.0. should be paid in

the aforesaid manner not withstanding the fact that the on pp e aeal to the Appellant Tribunal or

the one application to the Central Govt. As the case may be, is filled to avoid scriptoria work if

excising Rs. 1 Iacs fee of Rs.1Q0/- for each.

(4) -411441c1 44 'Zjett) 31 -141*F1 1970 "T1211 Tl-'31M4U 31<,VS-1 ziT

311431- /121-1NO- fqurRF Alf0M-Tt 311- 71 14 1 Ac ;4() Act T).6.50 t1t - 1-1ziEd71

ffTZ 6)•11 '1%- I

One copy of application or .010. as the case may be, and the order of the adjournment

authority shall beer a court fee stamp of Rs.6.50 paise as prescribed under scheduled-I item of

the court fee Act, 1975 as amended.

(5) 3111 Zl -4-R1d- TiFra 4,1 fd-zi----or ftult 30 'lit mr9 311m-ffra f4Rii \-5u-d-r Q-11 "11411

\301t 3141-JR1 'T711R1\1111 (m-FTIM) fTrTi, 1982 it t I

Attention in invited to the rules covering these and other related matter contended in the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

(3 )

18.08.2010 4,64,876/-

1

31.05.2010 033/AC/REB/2010 4,70,577/-

Sr.NO. Amount of Rebate (Z)

sactioned 4

Date

2

4,93,847/- NVR Fps

0

2

- \'s ','--,,,, . \— -,77- 'c'

.3, .

* .'1NmEDAW.9 * ar6-rgN\''

30.04.2010 3T IN 3

4

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-I/2012

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

The present appeals have been filed by M/s. Ashima Dyecot

Ltd., Texcellance Complex, Khokhara Mehmedabad, Ahmedabad —

380021 [ hereinafter referred to as " the appellant " ] against following

Order -In-Original[s] [ hereinafter referred to as " the impugned orders "]

passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I

Ahmedabad-I [ herein after referred to as 'the adjudicating authority'].

2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the

manufacture of Cotton Fabrics and Man Made Fabrics falling under

Chapter 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant

had exported Cotton Bleached and finished Fabrics falling under Chapter

Heading No.52 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 on payment of

Central Excise Duty after having opted for full exemption under

Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 and they had filed rebate

claims with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I,

Ahmedabad-I under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-I,

Ahmedabad-I has sanctioned the rebate claims vide following Order-In-

Original[s] as per Column No.2 of the TABLE -A shown here-in- below :-

TABLE —A

■3113,14 0,,Av R I AP/36

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 5

30.04.2010 4,83,122/- 4

16/AC/REB/2010

5 07.05.2010 4,95,428F

23/AC/REB/2010

6 10.05.2010 4,98,838/-

24/AC/REB/2010

7 07.05.2010 4,24,054/-

22/AC/REB/2010

8 25.05.2010 4,90,371/-

28/AC/REB/2010

9. 25.05.2010 4,94,843/-

29/AC/REB/2010

10. 28.05.2010 4,93,996/-

30/AC/REB/2010

11. 28.11.2010 4,95,073/-

31/AC/REB/2010

12.

■.., 02.06.2010 4,22,565/-

34/AC/REB/2010

13 02.06.2010 4,95,673/-

35/AC/REB/2010

14. 28.05.2010 2,99,581/-

32/AC/REB/2010

15. 09.07.2010 2,76,192/-

48/AC/REB/2010

16. 13.07.2010 3,66,698/-

49/AC/REB/2010

51/AC/REB/2010 29.07.2010 4,31,318/-

17.

3. However, the appellant was issued following Show Cause

Notices as per Column No.2 of TABEL-B shown herein below for

erroneously sanctioned above rebate claims by the Assistant

Commissioner, Central .Excise, Div.1,Ahmedabad-I with a proposal to

recover the amount of rebate sanctioned and interest under Section 11 A

. and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act,1944 on the following grounds

Date

Show cause notice F.NO. Order-In-Original No. Date

V/10- 15 6/Re b/09 29.03.2011 107/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011

V/10-15 to 17 &

33/Reb/2010 29.03.2011 108/AC/Reb/2011-12

2

4,70,577/-

6

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

3.1. Central Excise duty on exported goods was paid through the

Cenvat Credit by way of utilization of the credit lying in balance which

was not reversed by the appellant while opting for full exemption under

Notification No.30/2004 CE dated 9.7.2004 and opting Out from CENVAT

scheme to Exemption scheme. The appellant have not availed CENVAT

Credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of the final products

which were exported.

3.2 The appellant used Grey Fabrics, Dyes and Chemicals

procured duty free under D.E.E.C. Scheme used in manufacture of the

export products . The CENVAT Credit availed and utilized, was a wrong

manner as the appellant is not entitled to discharge duty on Export

Goods and claim for rebate of duty purported to have been paid. The

appellant was availing full exemption under the Notification No.30/2004-

CE dated 09.07.2004 from 16.1.2006 onwards and on which date

whatever CENVAT credit lying balance should have lapsed as per Rule

11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 which should therefore never be

utilized by any manufacturer or producer of final products for payment

of duty of excise on clearance of any products for home consumption or

for export.

3.3 Thereafter, the adjudicating authority has passed the

following orders as per Column No.4 of the TABLE-B shown herein below

for recovery of erroneously sanctioned amount as rebate of duty with

the interest under Section 11 A and Section 11B ibid.

TABLE —B

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 7

3 V/10-151/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 109/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,93,847/-

4 V/10-152/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 110/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,83,122/-

5 V/10-153/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 111/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,95,428/-

6 V/10-154/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 112/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,98,838/-

7 V/10-155/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 113/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,24,054/-

8 '" V/10-157/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 114/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,90,371/-

9 V/10-159/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 115/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,94,843/-

10. V/10-160/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 116/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,93,996/-

11. V/10-164/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 117/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,95,073/-

12. V/10-165/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 118/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,22,565/-

13. V/10-166/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 119/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,95,673/-

14. V/10-169/Reb/2009

29.03.2011 120/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 2,99,581/-

15. V/10-01/Reb/2010

29.03.2011 12]/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 2,76,192/-

16. V/10-12/Reb/09

29.03.2011 122/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 3,66,698/-

17.

+.,

V/10-14/Reb/2010 29.03.2011 123/AC/Reb/2011-12 28.11.2011 4,31,318/-

4. Being aggrieved with the above impugned orders, the appellant

filed present appeals on the following grounds:-

4.1 For sanctioning of the rebate claim, the department has to

verify the proof of export like ARE-I, Shipping bill EP copy, bill of lading

and bank realization certificate. If the goods were exported to the

satisfaction of the authority, and the payment was received, in

convertible currency, then the department can not reject the rebate of

the assessee. 4. c,5kONER (App

P.

8

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

4.2 The appellants were availing Cenvat on raw-materials which

was lying unutilized in their account due to export of goods. And such

untutilized credit balance in their accounts is accrued right as held by

the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Limited V/s

Union of India (1999 (106) ELT 3] and Dai !chi Karkaria Limited [ 1999

(112) ELT, 353 ] that right can not be taken away by any subsequent

legislation. As per rule 11 CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the credit shall

lapse only if a manufacturer avails benefit of value based exemption

notification.

4.3 As per departmental circular manufacturer of textile articles

can simultaneously avail the benefit of both the notifications. For

clearing the goods without payment of duty under Notification No.

30/2004, the manufacturer shall not avail any Cenvat on raw-material

consumed in the manufacture of such goods which are cleared without

payment of duty. However, the manufacturer can clear the resultant

finished goods on payment of duty under Notification No. 29/2004-CE

dated 9.7.2004 if he does not wish to avail exemption under notification

No. 30/2004 on any count. In the case of exports, they had opted not to

clear the goods under exemption and decided to clear the same on

payment of duty. They had cleared the aforesaid goods by claming

benefit of notification No. 29/2004 on payment of duty and they also

filed their returns in time showing clearance under Notification No. 29/2004.

4.4 The rejection of rebate was also barred by limitation as no

communication or action was taken by the department at the time of

payment of duty. They have reversed proportionate Cenvat credit on

15.01.2006 before opting for clearance under Notification No.30/2004-

CE dated 9.7.2004, the balance lying after such reversal, can be used for

clearance of any excisable final product on which duty of excise is

leviable by the manufacturer.

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 9

4.5 Rule 11. (3) (ii) of Cenvat Credit rules is not attracted in their

case as the product manufactured by them were not absolutely

exempted. They have placed reliance upon the decision of the Karnataka

High Court in the case of M/s.Tafe Limited. Also the said rule was

inserted only in the year 2007, the balance lying in Cenvat credit from

the year 2006 would not lapse.

4.6 Being aggrieved with the appellant have also filed an appeal

against the following Order-In-Originals] No as shown in Column No.4 of

the TABLE —C shown herein below wherein the adjudicating authority

have rejected their rebate claims on the above grounds under Section 11

B[1] of the Central Excise Act,1944. In their grounds of these two appeals

they raised the same contention as mentioned above.

TABLE -C

Sr.

No.

Show cause notice -

F.NO. Date Order-In-Original No. Date

Amount of

Rebate (Z)

rejected

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 V/10-9/Reb/2011-12 3.08.2011 140/AC/Reb/2011-12 16.12.2011 86,259/-

2 V/10-10 /Reb/2011-12 16.12.2011 141/AC/Reb/2011-12 16.12.2011 44,836/-

5. Personal Hearings was held on 9.03.2012 and the appellant

appeared and reiteratqd the grounds of the appeals mentioned in the

Memorandum of Appeals. He has submitted the copy of Revision Order

No.3-10/2012-CX dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Joint Secretary to the

Government of India in their own case on the same issue and also

. submitted copies of case laws on which they rely upon.

10 V.2[52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

5.1 The core issue under consideration is that whether the

appellant is eligible for rebate of duty paid on export of goods by

utilization of lapsed CENVAT credit of duty on account of having opted

for full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 or

otherwise, which is to be examined by me in light of the facts of the case

at the hand and in terms of Notification No.30/2004-CE[N.T.] dated

9.7.2004 and Rule 11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004.

5.2 The appellant is engaged in manufacture of 100 % cotton

dyed and finished fabrics falling under Chapter Heading No.5208 of the

First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.00 perusal of the

records I find that during the period from 1.4.2003 to 15.1.2006, the

appellant was availing simultaneously both the Notification No.29/2004-

CE dated 9.7.2004 and Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004, and

also the appellant was availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs

used in manufacture of finished goods cleared under Notification

No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004.

5.3

From 15.1.2006 onwards the appellant has been availing full

exemption since they have opted for Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 and opted out from CENVAT scheme with effect from

15.1.2006. On the date of opting out CENVAT scheme to exemption

scheme under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 there was

unutilized accumulated CENVAT credit balance which was lying in their

CENVAT credit account. It is not in dispute that from 15.1.2006 onwards

the appellant has been clearing the entire finished goods after availing

full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004.

5.4 The appellant had opted for full exemption from payment of

Central Excise duty under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004

and had not availed CENVAT Credit on inputs used for manufacturing the

final products as per proviso to Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 1 1

9.7.2004 which clearly provided that " nothing contained in this

-notification shall apply to the goods in respect of which credit of duty on

inputs has been taken under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules,2002

" and the clearance of goods either for home consumption or for export

should be at NIL rate of duty under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 which the appellant had entirely opted for.

5.5 The appellant had exported bleached and dyed shirting

fabrics falling under Chapter Heading No.5208 as per Notification

No.29/2004-CE dated 97.2004 on payment of duty of excise by way of

utilisation of accumulated CENVAT credit. The appellant's submission

that they had opted not to clear the goods under exemption and decided

to clear the same on payment of duty, and they have filed rebate claims

under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2002. The department's stand

that the balance CENVAT credit was already lapsed as per Rule 11[3] of

the CENTAT Credit Rules,2004 the same should not be utilised by a

manufacturer or producer of final products for payment of duty on

removal of any final products either for home consumption or for export

under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2002.

5.6 In their findings the adjudicating authority has recorded that

the appellant had not a'Vailed CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs used

in manufacture of final products cleared for export under Rule 18 of the

Central Excise Rules,2002, which facts remain undisputed by the

appellant. The facts are also recorded in the impugned order[s] by the

adjudicating authority that the appellant had procured the grey fabrics,

dyes and chemicals duty free under D.E.E.C. scheme and the same were

processed and exported and the appellant had not used duty paid raw

materials in manufacture of export of goods on which the appellant had

made payment of duty by way of utilization of lapsed CENVAT credit of

duty. However in the guise of Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004

the appellant had deliberately cleared their final products for export

d o

(

12 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-I/2012

under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 on payment of duty of

excise by way of utilization of already lapsed CENVAT credit on account

of opting out CENVAT scheme as per Rule 11(3) of the CENVAT Credit

Rules,2004 with sole object to get cash refund of balance CENVAT credit

lying in CENVAT Credit account which as per their belief can not be

lapsed.

5.7 I also find on perusal of the Show Cause Notice[s] issued by

the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division:I, Ahmedabad-I that

it is alleged that the assessee could not pay duty from their deemed

CENVAT credit account once they had opted for exemption under

Notification No.30/2004-CE[N.T.] dated 9.7.2004 and the deemed credit

Notification No.06/2002 was rescind. However, in the impugned order[s]

I find no where clear findings and discussion that the appellant had

cleared the goods for export on payment of duty of excise by way of

utilisation of deemed CENVAT credit or accumulated CENVAT credit of

duty lying balance on the date of opting out the CENVAT credit scheme.

However I clearly find from Order No.3-10/2012-CX dated 6.1.2012

passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, wherein the

submission made by the appellant before the Revisional Authority that

the entire amount of deemed credit stands debited on 1.11.2003 and

with effect from 1.4.2003 they were availing CENVAT credit on actual

basis which was lying unutilised in his account due to export of goods.

5.8 Section 5A[1A] of the Central Excise Act,1944 provides that

when the goods are absolutely exempted from payment of duty of excise

the manufacturer has no option to pay the duty of excise. Relevant text

of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act,1944 reads as under :-

SECTION SA. Power to grant exemption from duty of excise--

(1A) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an exemption under sub-

section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of the duty of excise leviable

thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods. ' 4, .1.:--- ' ' '

‹, .,

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 13

5.9 CBEC vide letter F.No.48/3/2010-CX.4 dated 19.08.2010 has

clarified that when there is absolute exemption available under

notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act,1944, the

manufacturer can not have any option to pay duty. In other words the

manufacturer can not pay duty of excise on their own volition if there is

exemption available, The relevant excerpts of above CBEC Letter dated

19.8.2010 are as under:

"3.1 A close reading of the Section 5A (1A) will make it clear that in case of the absolute exemption from payment of duty to any excisable goods, the manufacturer of such goods cannot have any option to pay the duty. In terms of the Notification

4/2006-CE, the goods covered under the entry number 90 are exempted from the

payment of duty upto first clearances of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 3500 Metric Tonne as per condition No. 10. Thus the exemption upto the first clearance of 3500 MT is absolute in nature, and do not impose any condition for availment of the said exemption. It is clear that this condition only places an upper cap on the applicability of the exemption under SI No 90, whereas the exemption within the limits

of this upper cap is absolute."

6. Though the CBEC has issued above clarification in respect to

the product of paper and paper board the same is applicable in light of

the facts that the subject issue remain the same in this particular case

and also the Legislature's object and intention is very clear that

whenever no duty of excise is payable by manufacturer or producer by

virtue of exemption under notification issued under Section 5A of the

Central Excise Act,1994, the manufacturer have no other option to pay

duty of excise on their own volition.

6.1 In view of above clarification the appellant should have no

option to pay the duty of excise either on DTA or export clearance

following the admitted facts that they have opted for full exemption

under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004. However, the

appellant have opted for Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004

with clear intention in order to get cash refund of balance credit lying in

their CENVAT credit account which was already lapsed. It may be

14 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-I/2012

mentioned here that as per Indian Constitution, not a penny can be

collected less or more than what is due in accordance of law. Therefore,

by paying the duty on goods cleared by them, which they were not

required to pay, the appellant has deliberately gone against the basic

provision of the Constitution of India.

6.2 In terms of Rule 11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004, the

balance lying in Cenvat Credit Account should be lapsed on 15.1.2006 as

from that date onwards the appellant had opted for. full exemption

under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 issued under Section

5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the appellant had also reversed

CENVAT credit of duty availed on inputs lying in stock, in process and

contained in final products lying on stock before opting out the CENVAT

scheme to full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 and they complied mandatory requirement of the said rule and

notification. Thereafter such lapsed CENVAT credit should not be

allowed by them to utilize for payment of duty on excise on any other

final products whether cleared for home consumption or for export. Rule

11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 is reproduced below :-

Rule 11. Transitiopal

(3) A manufacturer or producer of a final product shall be required to pay an aftiount equivalent to the CENVAT credit, if any, taken by him in respect of inputs received for use in the manufacture of the said

final product and is lying in stock or in process or is contained in the final product lying in stock, if,-

[I] he opts for exemption from whole of the duty of excise leviable on the said final product manufactured or produced by him under a notification issued under section 5A of the Act; or

[ii] the said final product has been exempted absolutely under section 5A of the Act, and after deducting the said amount from the balance of CENVAT credit, if any, lying in his credit

, the balance, if any, still remaining shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of

duty on any other final product whether cleared for home consumption or for export, or for

payment of service tax on any output service, whether provided in India or exported.

<ntif (.!?,

4.;

•q•

'I M/oF DI,VO'C) *

‘37-1r:tiT

riL o lq u

O

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 15

6.3 Supposing, if the appellant wanted to avail Notification

No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 the question of reversal of CENVAT credit

of duty availed on inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in final

products would have not arisen at all in their case. Therefore with clear

object and sole purpose to avail full exemption under Notification

No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 from 1.5.2006 onwards the appellant

have strictly complied the mandatory requirements of Rule 11[3] of the

CENVAT Credit Rules,2004, and Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 which strictly prohibits the availment of CENVAT credit of duty

on inputs required for manufacture of final products.

6.4 In the case of S.M.M. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS

PVT.LTD.Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., (A), COCHIN reported in 2006[205]

E.L.T. 1056 [Tri.Bang.] Hon'ble CESTAT held that since Modvat credit

itself has lapsed, payment of duty to Government through lapsed

Modvat credit is no payment at all. Relevant Para 8 is reproduced below

8. With the introduction of compounded levy

scheme and requirement of payment of duty under Section 3A, the modvat credit

lapses. The appellants challenged the vires of Section 3A in the Kerala High Court. The Kerala

High Court in the interim order stayed the operation of Section 3A. Later the appellants did

not get any favourable order from the Kerala High Court, therefore, they started paying duty

under Section 3A. They have also stated that they discharged their entire duty liability of Rs.

42 lakhs in terms of Section 3A. If these facts are accepted, the availment of Modvat credit

for payment of duty is not legal for the reason that the Modvat credit has lapsed. It is not the

case of the appellant that the discharge of duty under Section 4 during the interim stay of the

Kerala High Court has been regularised by the Court. Since they lost their case in the High

Court, their action of availing Modvat credit has not been sanctified by any legal order. It is a

fact that the duty paid has been collected from the customers. Since the Modvat credit itself

has lapsed, payment of duty to the Government through lapsed Modvat credit is no payment

at all. Here is an instance where duty has been collected from the customers but the same

has not gone to the exchequer. Therefore, Section 11D is rightly attracted and the demand of

Rs. 5,13,118/- is correct.

6.5 In this case the CENVAT Credit lying in balance itself at the

time of opting for full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE

dated 9.7.2004 is already lapsed as per Rule 11 [3] of the CENVAT Credit

16 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

Rules, 2004, the payment of duty of excise made on removal of export of

goods is not payment of excise duty at all and accordingly the appellant

is not eligible to claim for rebate of duty of excise under Rule 18 of the

Central Excise Rules, 2002.

6.6 As per Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular No. the

manufacturer or producer of the textile products can avail both the

Notification No.29/2004 — CE dated 9.7.2004 and 30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 simultaneously subject to maintenance of separate inventories

for use of cenvatable or non-cenvatable inputs used in manufacture of

final products. The appellant is well established business firm and

registered with the department since long they are fully well about the

provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004, and both the Notification

No.29/2004 CE dated 9.7.2004 and 30/2004-CE d a ted 9.7.2004 and

above cited CBEC circular. There is no express bar to avail both the

notifications simultaneously provided separate accounts are being

maintained the appellant was eligible to avail and utilize CENVAT credit

of duty on inputs used in manufacture of final products cleared as per

Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 only from the date whey

have decided to avail the benefits of Notification No.29/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 under the self-assessment procedure and strictly follow the

mandatory requirements of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 and both the

notifications. In short it is not dispute that the appellant is not eligible to

avail the benefits of both the notifications simultaneously but the

dispute is the appellant had deliberately claimed illegitimate rebate of

duty of excise by way of payment of duty from already lapsed CENVAT

credit and such payment can not be treated as payment of duty of

excise.No manufacturer or producer of final products would pay any

penalty more or less towards payment of duty from their pocket on

removal of final products on which otherwise no duty is.payable by them

C

* pASP9 arr4".

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 17

owing to avail full exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004. However in this particular case the appellant choose to avail

benefits of Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 only at the time

of removal of goods for export with malafide intention to get cash refund

of lapsed CENVAT credit and there was no other purpose for the act of

omission which is against the policy of the fiscal legislature and

ultimately it is detrimental to ex-chequer.

6.7 Therefore the appellant's contention that the balance lying

on 15.1.2006 in Cenvat Credit Account can be used by the manufacturer

.for clearance of any excisable final products on which duty of excise is

leviable and under no circumstances the balance lying un-utilised shall

never lapse and it shall be available to the manufacturer as an accrued

right, is, prima facie, not tenable. Also the appellant's contention that

the provision of Rule 11[3] of the CENVAT Credit of duty is not attracted

in their case as the said rule is inserted on 1.3.2007 and therefore the

balance lying in CENVAT credit account on 15.1.2006 would not lapse.

The appellant's contention is not tenable as admittedly the utilization of

lapsed CENVAT credit for payment of duty of excise was effected during

the year 2010 well after the insertion of the said rule, and therefore the

contention is devoid of merits.

6.8 Therefore the rebate claim erroneously sanctioned by the

Assistant Commissioner is not reasonably maintainable on the following

grounds and in light of the facts and findings discussed above :-

[i] Admittedly the appellant have opted for full exemption under

Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 and the appellant had

not availed CENVAT credit of duty on inputs used in manufacture

of export goods as per Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004

and the appellant has been clearing their entire-fis.l products Tic

, 0 (APp&.

nSi

rn <

•

3'0 NO*

* 4 "3-1T1-1Z,A-

18 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

under the exemption scheme under Notification No.30/2004-CE

dated 9.7.2004.

[ii] As per Rule 11[3] of CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 the

accumulated cenvat credit lying balance in CENVAT credit account

is already lapsed on the date i.e.15.12.2006 of opting out the

CENVAT scheme, and therefore the payment of duty by way of

utilization of the lapsed CENVAT credit should not be treated as

payment of duty of excise for which the appellant claim for rebate

under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2002.

[iii] the appellant have deliberately shown in their rebate claims

that the goods cleared for export as per Notification No.29/2004-

CE dated 9.7.2004 in order to get cash refund of unutilized balance

of CENVAT credit lying on 15.1.2006.

6.9 It shall be the sole responsibility of every registered

manufacturer or producer of excisable goods that they should be strictly

complied the regulatory requirements before the removal of goods from

the factory whether the transaction to be affected is liable to duty of

excise or exempt from payment of duty of excise. Legal statue never

permit any tax payer to mis-declare or written incorrect requirement

with regard to invocation of tax liability or duty exemption.

6.10 The appellant had not complied strictly the mandatory

requirements whether the transaction made for export of goods was

actually liable for duty of excise or exempt from the duty of excise and

the appellant had made incorrect declaration deliberately as the export

goods were cleared by availing Notification No.29/2004-CE dated

9.7.2004 and failed to make actual compliance of essential requirements.

Mere attempted compliance would not be sufficient to lain 'k

(15 m c-

1,14 *

* 4/.04Fri 9

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-I/2012 19

export transaction was liable to tax. In this case admittedly the appellant

was not seeking benefits of exemption even after strict compliance of

Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 with the deliberate

deception and unlawful aim to encash the balance of un-utilised CENVAT

credit of duty which defeat the very object and purpose of legislature.

6.11 In their grounds of appeals the appellant have declared that

they were availing CENVAT credit on raw materials which was lying

unutilised in their account due to export of goods. I find that mere

assertion that such accumulated CENVAT credit lying as balance in their

CENVAT credit account due to export of goods would not be sufficient to

say that such CENVAT credit of duty was accumulated on account of

clearance of such goods export under Bond or against the Letter of

Undertaking. That it be so, the appellant should have recourse to file

their refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 with

respect to un-utilised -CENVAT credit lying balance at the time of opting

out CENVAT scheme. In absence of such documentary evidences to

substantiate their above contention I feel that the possibility of availing

CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of final

products cleared for home consumption by the appellant under

Notification No.29/2004-CE [N.T.] dated 9.7.2004 could not be ruled out

as admittedly prior to opting out from CENVAT scheme the appellant was

availing simultaneously both the Notification No.29/2004-CE[N.TJ dated

9.7.2004 and Notification No.30/2004-CE[N.T.] dated 9.7.2004. I find no

such vital facts were brought on records after proper verification of

records by the department. Even so there is no such provision under the

Central Excise Act,1944 and rules made thereunder to get cash refund of

such accumulated CENVAT credit. To establish their claim the appellant

.must corroborate with substantial evidences that such accumulated

CENVAT credit was only on account of export goods cleared under bond

r V rtm

31 g

1,1,11 110.

* '11.1 fo E. A t5 ''

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 20

or Letter of Undertaking and then under such circumstances the

appellant ought to have file their refund claim under Rule 5 of the

CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 in the prescribed manner and time limit by

the Legislature which regulatory requirement should be first strictly

comply by the appellant. Even otherwise if the CENVAT credit of duty

accumulated only on account of export of goods under bond or letter of

undertaking, the appellant was definitely in position to utilise such

accumulated CENVAT credit towards clearance of any final products for

Home Consumptions and thereby the appellant was not eligible to get

cash refund of such credit, and therefore the adjudicating authority

rightly held that the claim of rebate was not admissible to the appellant.

7. In the case of Steel Strips V/s. Commissioner of Central

Excise, Ludhiana reported in 2011 (269) E.L.T. 257 (Trip - LB), the Larger

Bench of Tribunal held that refunds and exemption are governed by rule

of strict compliance and policy of refund of Input Credit is regulated by

the statutory provisions. Relevant paras of the above decision is

reproduced below :-

Refunds and Exemption are Governed by Rule of Strict Compliance

5.8 Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory

requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption

clause that are important. Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where

mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory

requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been

substantially complied with notwithstanding the non-compliance of directory requirements.

In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance

with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty. The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to

preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted.

Substance and Essence of Statute are Paramount Considerations 5.9 The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has

been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is

whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the statute, if so, strict adherence to those requirements is a precondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the

other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the

"essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of

business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere

attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which

are considered as essential. In the cases of refund substantial compliance to the law granting refund is sine qua non.

* MEO

ns PO 3761:Kle"'

I I cl

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 21

Policy of Refund of Input Credit is Regulated by Statutory Provisions

5.7 A distinction between provisions of statute which are of substantive character and are built in with certain specific objectives of policy, on the one hand, and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished. An eligibility criteria to get refund calls for a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning if the same is directory in nature. The doctrine of substantial compliance is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that can be reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the

"essence" or the "substance" of the requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of "substantial compliance" depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for1/4which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance

essential to every reasonable objective of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed.

8. CENVAT credit scheme is a scheme to remove the cascading

effect of the central excise duty as the same is levied at each stage of

manufacture and the CENVAT credit is available only if the final product

suffers the excise duty. The scheme is, therefore, evolved to avoid

multiplication or duplication of duty element upon the ultimate cost of

the product when it reaches to the hands of the consumer. Therefore

there are certain rule and regulations which should be strictly followed

by the beneficiary prescribed by the legislature in the true spirit.

An

8.1. In order to avail CENVAT Credit of duty it is the fundamental

rule under the CENVAT credit scheme that the input on which credit

taken must be used in manufacture of excisable goods on which duty of

excise is payable otherwise CENVAT Credit is not admissible ab intio in

terms of Rule 6[1] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 in which mandatory

and categorical terms that no CENVAT Credit of specified duty shall be

allowed on inputs used in manufacture of final products which is exempt

from the whole of duty of excise or is chargeable to NIL rate of duty.

Relevant text of Rule 6[1] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 is reproduced

below :-

1/4

E

a~Af~1 it

22 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

Rule 6. Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods

and provider of taxable and exempted services.-

(1) The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input

service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2).

8.2 As rightly observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Amrit Paper V Commissioner of Central Excise,LOdhiana reported

in 2006 [200] E.L.T. 365 [S.C.] on similar issue that if the interpretation of

the appellant is accepted it would mean that primacy has to be given to

the notification over the statutory provisions contained in erstwhile rule

57 C of the Central Excise Rules,1944. The Apex Court substantiates the

department's contention that the view taken by the appellant was

accepted the provision of Rule 57 C would be rendered nugatory and

redundant. Relevant Para 13 of the above apex court's decision is

reproduced below :-

13.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent the provisions of Rule 57C would be rendered nugatory and redundant if the interpretation as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant is accepted. It would mean that primacy has to be given to the Notification over the statutory provisions contained in Rule 57C.

Rule 57C reads as follows :

"57C. Credit of duty not to be allowed If final products are exempt. -

No credit of the specified duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of a final product (other

than those cleared either to a unit in a Free Trade Zone or to a hundred per cent Export-Oriented Unit) shall

be allowed if the final product is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable

to nil rate of duty.'

8.3 Moreover, the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide

Circular No. 911/01/2010-CX dated 14.1.2010 has also clarified the fact

that when the duty is not required to be paid, the CENAVAT credit of

duty paid on inputs is not admissible. The relevant excerpts of such

clarification issued by CBEC vide above cited Circular are reproduced

below:

"As per the provisions of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 6, credit of duty paid on the inputs is allowed only if these inputs are used in the manufacture of a final product. The Board vide circular dated 26.9.2007 issued from F. No., 93/1/2005-CX-3, had clarified that if the process does not amount of manufacture, the duty is not required to be paid and hence no Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs is admissible."

23 V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012

8.4 In terms of Rule 2(h) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, "final

products" means excisable goods manufactured or produced from input,

or using input service. As per Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 the

excisable goods are all those goods specified in the First Schedule to the

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 subject to duty of excise. Therefore

definition of "final product" is confined to excisable goods which are

dutiable and excisable - goods which are not subject to duty. Rule 2[d] of

the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 that "exempted goods" means excisable

goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable

thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to Nil rate of

duty.Therefore it is fundamental rule under CENVAT credit scheme that

the final products manufactured out of using cenvatable raw materials

must be dutiable goods or goods are chargeable to duty of excise.

Therefore it is well established principle that if the goods are exempt

from the whole of duty of excise or chargeable to NIL rate of duty, No

CENVAT credit of duty laid on inputs used in manufacture of such final

products is admissible at all.

8.5 In this case the appellant have taken CENVAT credit of duty

on inputs when their final products was chargeable to duty in terms of

Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 and there is no dispute by

the revenue that the appellant have not taken CENVAT credit rightly. The

dispute remains limited extent to utilization of said CENVAT credit which

the department stands not rightly utilized by the appellant which infact

already lapsed in the appellant's case. However in appellant's case the

question of utilization of such credit does not arise as the accumulated

credit lying in balance in their CENVAT credit was already lapsed as per

Rule 11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 as on the date of opting out

from CENVAT scheme to full exemption scheme.

- , • ,ONCR

•

4.EDALIP.0

' .1:71s 1,

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-l/2012 24

8.6 In the case of Choksi Enterprises V/s. CCE, Mumbai-II

reported in 2011[274] E.L.T.401[ Tri.-Mumbai] the Hon'ble CESTAT held

that the CENVAT credit can be recovered which is still lying in the

account which has not been utilized and such credit can be lapsed when

the product become fully exempt from the duty as per erstwhile rule 57

C of the Central Excise Rules,1944 and the existing Rule 6 of the CENVAT

Credit Rules,2004.

9. To sum up my final conclusion are here under :-

[a] The appellant is not eligible to utilize the already lapsed CENVAT

credit as per Rule 11[3] of the CENVAT Credit Rules,2004 following opting

out the CENVAT credit scheme and the appellant had opted for full

exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 issued

under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act,1944 from 15.1.2006 onwards.

[b] The appellant availing full Exemption vide Notification No.30/2004-CE

dated 9.7.2004 can not clear their final products for export on payment

of duty of excise under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 by

claiming that they are clearing the goods for export in accordance with

Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004 and by utilizing balance

CENVAT credit of duty which was lapsed.

[c] The payment made by the appellant by way incorrectly utilization of

already lapsed CENVAT credit of duty can not be treated as payment of

duty of excise at all and as whatever payment made for duty of excise

which otherwise not to pay should be treated as deposit with the

government account and accordingly their claim for rebate of duty on

export goods is not maintainable and in order.

•

V.2(52)11 to 29/Ahd-I/2012 25

10. In view of above facts and findings I pass the following

order.

ORDER

I reject all the 19 appeals filed by the appellant M/s. Ashima

Dyecot Ltd and uphold the above mentioned orders passed by the

adjudicating authority.

(MALLIKA MAHAJA c .3 .2-o 1

COMMISSIONER (APPEAL -V)

C. EX., AHMEDABAD

Attested Date: .03.2012

crij'\\

(K. uhan )

Superintendent (Appeals-V),

C. Ex., Ahmedabad-1.

BY REGD. POST A.D.

To,

M/s. Ashima Dyecot Ltd.,

Texcellance Complex,

Khokhara Mehmedabad,

Ahmedabad — 380021

Copy to:

1. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad.

2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad - I.

3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div.-I,

Ahmedabad-I.

4. F.No.V2(52)11 to 29 /Ahd-l/2012

5. Th Guard files.

The P. A. file.