Page 204 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

738 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 203/37/96-CX, dated 26-4-1996 .............................................................. [Para 11]
C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 605/65/2006-DBK, dated 22-1-2007 ................................................ [Para 3]
C.B.E. & C. Letter F. No. 605/33/2014-DBK, dated 5-11-2014 ......................................................... [Para 3]
[Order]. - Ten Revision Applications Nos. 195/33-42/2018-R.A., dated 2-
2-2018, have been filed by M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd., Alwar (hereinafter
referred to as the applicant) against Orders-in-Appeal No. 346-
355(SM)/CE/JPR/2017, dated 31-10-2017, passed by Commissioner (Appeals),
CGST, Jaipur, wherein the appeals of the respondent were allowed and the or-
ders-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division,
Bhiwadi were set aside.
2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicant is engaged in manufac-
ture of Automobile Tyres. They filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Ex-
cise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004
with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who sanctioned the rebate claims
observing that the applicant had not claimed rebate/refund of duty paid on in-
puts. Therefore, conditions (v) & (viii) of Notification No. 96/2009-Cus., dated
11-9-2009 are not applicable to their case. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed
an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned Orders-
in-Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal observing that in terms of the Notifi-
cation No. 96/2009-Cus. read with Notification No. 44/2001-C.E. (N.T.), an ad-
vance license holder is mandatorily required to export the goods without pay-
ment of duty. The applicant paid the duty deliberately to encash the CENVAT
credit when clearly the same was not payable. Aggrieved by the impugned or-
der, the applicant has filed the present Revision Applications.
3. Personal hearings were granted on 19-11-2019, 5-12-2019, 16-12-2019
and 30-12-2019. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate appeared for personal hearing on 30-
12-2019 and reiterated the written submissions already submitted. He also sub-
mitted additional written submission in support of their contentions. It was con-
tended that admissibility of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs procured
indigenously stands decided in their favour in their own case by CESTAT [2014
(309) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it was held that the credit of duty paid on
the inputs supplied by local customers was admissible in the light of the judg-
ment of M/s. Oleofine Organics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Thane [2014 (299) E.L.T. 91
(Tri. - Mum.)] and M/s. Shakun Polymers Ltd. v. CCE [2009 (241) E.L.T. 250 (Tri. -
Ahd.)]. The decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in CCE v. Oleofine Organics case [2015 (319) E.L.T. A192 (Bom.)] which was
further affirmed by the Apex Court in UOI v. Oleofine Organic (India) Pvt. Ltd. in
SLP(C) No. 27282/2015 [2017 (352) E.L.T. A21 (S.C.)]. He submitted that Notifica-
tion 96/2009-Cus., dated 11-9-2009 does not impose any restriction on claiming
rebate of duty paid on the final/export goods. This position has been reiterated
by C.B.I. & C. vide Instruction F. No. 605/65/2006-DBK, dated 22-1-2007 which
was further clarified vide C.B.I. & C. Letter F. No. 605/33/2014-DBK, dated 5-11-
2014. He also quoted various judicial pronouncements in his favour in his addi-
tional submissions. He relied upon the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of M/s.
Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Nagpur [2013 (296) E.L.T. 411 (Tri. -
Mum)].
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  204