2005 (8) TMI 438

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent. [Order ]. Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal whereby the rebate claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the goods were exported out of India after the time period allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the goods were handed over to the Customs authority. Therefore, the rebate claim cannot be denied on the ground that the goods were actually exported after the period provided under the notification. The appellants relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Omega Bright Steel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 652 (Tri.-Del.) and Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. The goods were actually exported after the expiry of the period as extended by the Commissioner of Central Excise. 6. There was the delay of ten days in actual exports. The Tribunal in the case of Omega Bright Steel v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (Supra) held that in case of export of the goods established, the delay of 24 days is condonable due to alleg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X