BSL LIMITED Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed this appeal against the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 4,10,529/ -. The appellant filed the refund claim on the ground that they were not in a position to utilize the cenvat credit in respect of AED (T&TA) paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of export goods. The appellant exported the goods and claimed rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of basic excise duty.

(2.) THEY filed refund claim on AED (T&TA) under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 wherein rebate of duty was not availed. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that in the similar issue, the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Rohtak v. Indo Dane Textile Industries and Ors. vide final Order No. 288 -293/07 -SM(BR) dated 9.2.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenues.

(3.) THE learned authorized representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue submits that they have availed the rebate of duty in respect of the exported goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim refund of duty under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. He further submits that Rule 5 of the said Rules requires for the goods must have been exported either under bond or letter of undertaking. He also submits that Rule 5 provides that no refund of credit shall be allowed if the manufacturer claims rebate of duty under Central Excise Rules, 2002 in respect of such duty. He submits that the word "such duty" indicates in respect of inputs in question. It is his contention that the Rule 5 provides refund of duty when there is no scope for any reason adjustment of the duty in their modvat account.