2011 (9) TMI 932 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Rebate claim rejection based on discrepancy between goods cleared and goods exported.

Facts: The respondent filed a rebate claim for excise duty paid on goods exported, but discrepancy was found in the description of goods cleared from the manufacturer's premises and those exported. The original authority rejected the claim, which was later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Grounds of Revision Application:
- The issue is whether the exported product matches the one cleared from the manufacturer.
- The appellate authority emphasized the similarity between different product names but failed to address the clearance of "Phenzone Granules" along with "Diminazene Aceturate."
- The main issue of discrepancy was not adequately discussed or decided by the appellate authority.
- The difference in product names is not a minor technical lapse, as the goods cleared and exported are not the same.
- Lack of additional evidence to support the claim that the products are the same.

Counter Reply by Respondent:
- Documentary evidence proves that goods cleared were exported, making the claimant eligible for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
- Cited relevant notifications and previous case laws supporting their claim.

Government's Observations:
- The claim was initially rejected but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on principles of natural justice.
- The claimant proved that the goods were correctly exported, despite discrepancies in product descriptions.
- The difference in descriptions is a minor technical lapse, and all other export details matched, fulfilling legal requirements.
- Customs certification on the export documents further supports the claim.

Conclusion:
- The Government found no issue with the order-in-appeal and upheld it.
- The revision application was rejected for lacking merit.