9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/PAP/5/2010 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2010 - Shri P. Ayyam Perumal Shri V.B. Gaikawad, Advocate, for the Appellant. ORDER This is an appeal from M/s. Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. N-8, MIDC, Kupwad, Dist. Sangli - 416 436 (hereinafter referred as the appellant) against the O-I-O No. SLI/32/Adj/2009 (25/REF/2009) dated 17-8-2009. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who is a dealer and holding Central Excise registration, has filed four rebate claims claiming rebate in respect of consignments of excisable goods viz. Timolol Maleate EP, which were exported by paying duties on the said goods; that as the appellant filed four rebat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of the export of goods which has taken place under the four Central Excise invoices, four shipping bills/Airway bills and the duty of Rs. 86,650/- was paid by the appellant and the rebate claim is filed within time limit; (iv) that various Hon ble Tribunals in the following cases have allowed rebates claims in the absence of ARE-1s when other documents such as, shipping bills/bill of lading etc. were available on record proving the duty paid nature of the goods and actual export of the said goods. (a) CCE v. Kanwal Engg. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 141 (b) Wonderseal Packing v. CCE - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 626 (c) Home Care (I) P. Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 110 (d) G.T.C. Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... central excise registration as dealer and is regularly purchasing the goods in question from various manufacturers on payment of duty; that after entering the particulars including duty payment in the register maintained by the appellant and on some occasions, the appellant also sells the goods locally and passing cenvat credit of duty to the purchaser and on few occasions, the appellant is simultaneously exporting goods after preparing ARE-1s; that in the instant case also, the appellant had prepared ARE-1s and submitted before the Range officer for his signature but the RO refused to sign the ARE-1s saying that the appellant has not manufactured goods, hence there is no need for the appellant to prepare ARE-1s; that but perusal of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) and fully support the appellant s cause. Thus, the next thing to be seen is that what are other documents to be submitted by the appellant which could be a proof to establish that the goods had been exported. The appellant in the instant case has submitted the copies of shipping bills/airway bills and central excise invoices. I have gone through all the above documents and I found that on each shipping bill, there is an endorsement to the effect that the goods had been exported. There is no dispute with regard to duty payment and also there is no dispute whether the goods had been exported or not. The only dispute is that the appellant has failed to export the goods under ARE-1s. However, from the above documents, it is proved beyond dou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AP/208/2008 dated 21-10-2008). In the above case, the Commissioner (Appeals) Pune-II had held that due to procedural lapse, substantial benefit cannot be denied to the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held the above view basing on the following decisions - (a) 2006 (204) E.L.T. 632 (GOI) - In RE - Modern Process Printers. (b) 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1081 (GOI) - In RE - Non Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre, (c) 2001 (136) E.L.T. 467 (Tri.-Del.) - Kansal Knitwears v. CCE, Chandigarh, (d) 2005 (183) E.L.T. 277 (Tri.-Del.) - Murli Agro Products Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur. (e) 2006 (73) RLT 240 (CESTAT-Delhi) = 2006 (196) E.L.T. 295 (Tri.-Del.) - Rajasthan Industries v. CCE, Jaipur, (f) 2005 (71) RLT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
