1983 (5) TMI 138 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal filed u/s 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order allowing rebate of duty paid on exported cycles u/r 173PP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Details:
The Deputy Collector of Central Excise contested that the cycles were not exported directly from the manufacturer's factory as required by sub-rule (13) of Rule 173PP. Also, the AR 4A form was prepared after goods clearance and submitted directly to Customs, not the Central Excise Officer. Argued that only the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I could condone such irregularities, not the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Contention included lack of notification empowering condonation of sub-rules (13) to (18) of Rule 173PP and Rule 185. Requested to set aside the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order and restore the Assistant Collector's rejection of the rebate claim.

The respondents clarified that the goods were specifically manufactured for export, as indicated in gate passes during clearance. Due to uncertainty on the export port, the AR 4A application was prepared later and submitted to Customs Officer in Bombay before export. Customs Officer certified the shipment under AR 4A. Assistant Collector rejected the rebate claim initially, but the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) condoned procedural lapses under Rule 12 and granted the rebate. Argued in favor of upholding the Collector's decision.

Upon examination, it was found that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had the authority to condone irregularities under Section 35A(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Lack of compliance with sub-rules (13) to (18) of Rule 173PP and Rule 185 could be condoned under Rule 12. Although goods were not exported directly from the factory as required by Rule 173PP(13), considering the goods were meant for export and were actually exported, the Collector's decision was deemed fair. Instruction to condone minor procedural lapses for export promotion was considered. The Collector's order was upheld, dismissing the Deputy Collector's appeal.

Cross-objection by M/s. T.I. Cycles of India supported the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) order. However, the purpose of the cross-objection was deemed incorrect, leading to its dismissal.