9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 242 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate under Rule 18 - Drug Intermediaries - Description is different in ARE-1 - The department s main and only ground of claimed rebate to be termed as erroneous is that the products shown in relevant shipping bill is Drug Intermediates of TSH No. 2942 00 90 and in Central Excise Invoice/ARE-1 the goods stands named as Lasamide classification under TSH No. 2916 31 90. Therefore the item exported is not the very same as cleared from the factory on payment of duty. Held that - Both the above nomenclature are one and the same for the single export item such as one in Central Excise invoice is Lasamide as P.P. Medicament & Bulk Drug specific product name and the other is Product Group name Lasamide as Drug Intermediates . This has stated to be done as per the requirement/use of the buyer of the country of destination - Except from the stated difference in nomenclature and classification as per respective tariffs there is neither any charge nor any evidence to suggest that the goods exported were other than the goods actually cleared from the factory of manufacture. Government also takes note of the fact that there are a number of connected documents - In the case of M/s. Cotfab Exports reported as 2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA has held that minor difference in description of goods, being a procedural lapse, was liable to be condoned, since the substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural technical infractions. - Decided in favor of assessee. Period of Limitation - status of review/appeal of the impugned order-in-original by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35E(2) and 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 being time-barred. Held that - The statute of Section 35E(2) & 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stands amended w.e.f. 10-5-2008 and the relevant review order has to be necessarily made within the stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of relevant order-in-original which stands issued on 9-2-2009 in this case and shown dispatched in February 2009 The order-in-original herein was reviewed on 17-11-2009. Thus, cannot be taken as having been made within three months of communication of impugned order-in-original. Therefore, applicability of Time-bar as hitting to the legality of the said orders of review and appeal by the department as correct. It is quite clear that review order and appeal being time-barred were liable to be rejected straight way. - Decision against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Validity of rebate claim sanction on export of drug "Lasamide" under Central Excise supervision. 2. Discrepancy in classification of goods in export documents and Central Excise invoice. 3. Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-N.T. 4. Review order under Section 35E(2) and 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 being time-barred. Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Rebate Claim The case involves a dispute over the validity of a rebate claim sanctioned to the applicant for the export of the drug "Lasamide" under Central Excise supervision. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the sanction of two rebate claims due to discrepancies in the goods exported and those cleared from the factory. The applicant contended that all conditions under Notification No. 19/2004-N.T. were fulfilled, and the rebate should not be denied. Issue 2: Discrepancy in Classification The main contention was the discrepancy in the classification of goods in export documents and the Central Excise invoice. The department argued that the goods exported were different from those cleared from the factory, violating the conditions of the relevant notification. However, the applicant argued that the nomenclature differences were due to the product name being "Lasamide" in the invoice and "Drug Intermediates" in the shipping bill, with both referring to the same product. Issue 3: Compliance with Notification No. 19/2004-N.T. The applicant emphasized compliance with all procedures specified in Notification No. 19/2004-N.T. and highlighted that the procedural lapses, if any, should be condoned. They presented evidence to support the claim that the goods exported were the same as those cleared from the factory under Central Excise supervision. Issue 4: Time-Barred Review Order The applicant raised concerns about the review order being time-barred under Section 35E(2) and 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They argued that the review and appeal were filed after the stipulated three-month period, rendering them time-barred. The Government found merit in this argument, noting that the review order and appeal were indeed beyond the permissible time frame, leading to the rejection of the appeal. In conclusion, the Government set aside the impugned order-in-appeal due to its legal and procedural shortcomings, upholding the order-in-original. The revision application succeeded based on the arguments presented and the legal analysis conducted.
|
