9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing devoid of merit. - 195/221-224/2007-RA-CX - 147-150/2010-CX, - Dated:- 13-1-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. S/Shri R.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel and Dharmendra K. Singh, Consultant, for the Assessee. [Order]. These four revision applications have been filed by M/s. Raghunandan Syntex, Surat against the orders-in-appeal Nos. 20 to 23/2007(Ahd.II)CE/Raju/Commr(A) dated 21-3-07 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise, Ahmedabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant has filed rebate claims of Rs. 4,74,840/-, Rs. 4,48,460/-, 4,03,622/- and Rs. 4,27,365/- respectively of duty paid on goods viz. dyed printed fabrics made out from 100% Filament yarn which have been exported out of India. The goods have been manufactured and cleared from M/s. Vijay Laxmi Overseas, Changodar, Ahmedabad. The applicant has filed required documents along with their rebate i.e. original/duplicate ARE-1s, copies of Shipping Bills, copies of Bills of Lading, declarations regarding no separate claim for rebate and duty drawback, copies of RG23A Pt-IIs, Triplicate copies of ARE-1s duly verified by range Superintendent and Bank Certificates of Export and realization. 2.1 The goods me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reasons has been assigned by the adjudicating authority for not accepting the said facts; that the said adjudicating authority has not given reasons for not accepting the submissions made by the applicants; that it is obligatory on the part of the adjudicating authority to consider all the submissions made by the applicants and if for any reasons the same are not acceptable, the reasons for negating the same has to be made out; that the second point on which their rebate claims had been rejected is that the said goods had been exported after a period of six months from the date of clearance; that in this connection, as stated above, the said goods were shifted to the port areas for exports well before the expiry of six months; that the goods could not be shipped within six months due to non-availability of vessel; that the goods having been handed over to the port under the control of Customs authorities, that rejection of rebate claims on the ground of such delay beyond the control of the applicants is not justified; that in support of above contention relied on the decision in the case of Vardhman Spinning General Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ludhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of Birla VXL Ltd. reported at 1998 (99) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.) and the order in the case of Harison Chemicals reported at 2006 (200) E.L.T. 171(GOI). 3.4 The applicant also submitted that they have applied for permission for extension of time on post facto basis but the Commissioner has not exercised their power and rejected the application of the applicant. Applicant relied upon the following decision in support of their view : Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. EURO Cotspin Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 312 (Tri.-Del.). In the above matter the Hon ble Tribunal has held that the recommendations and approvals could also be granted on a post facto basis since the text of the said entry refers to only approval and not necessarily prior approval as attempted to be interpreted in the Deptt. s appeal. 3.5 The applicant inter alia state that the said claim has been filed on 5-6-05 before the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Div.-IV, Ahmedabad and the said claim was duly scrutinized by the concerned officers but they have returned the claim on the request of the supporting manufacturer. The same fact has been reiterated by the Asstt. Commissioner (Rebate) of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chemicals, 2006 (200) E.L.T. 171 (GOI) (ii) Birla VXL Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.) (iii) Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). (iv) Formica India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.). (v) Suksha International v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) (vi) Govt. of India order in the matter of CCEx Nagpur v. M/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., 2006 (200) E.L.T. 175 (GOI). (vii) Govt. of India order No. 886/06 dated 29-9-06 in the matter of M/s. A.A. Cotton Mills, Salem. (viii) Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.). (ix) Govt. of India Order No. 267/05 in the matter of M/s. Bhagirath Textile Ltd. (x) M/s. Modern Process Printers, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 632 (GOI). 4. The cases were listed for personal hearing on 27-10-09. Sh R.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel and Sh. Dharmendra K. Singh, Consultant appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. 5. Govt. has considered both oral and written submission of the applicant and also perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant documents like ARE-1s and Shipping Bills. The delay in shipment of the goods was unavoidable and beyond the control of the exporter. For this delay of 5 days in shipment, the applicant made an application to the Commissioner who is empowered to condone the delay under condition no. 2(h) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which reads as under : The excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacturer or warehouse or within such extended period as the Commissioner of Central Excise may in any particular case allow . As per the said provision, the Commissioner has discretionary power to give extension of the period in deserving and genuine case. In this case, the Commissioner did not give the permission, and rejected the request of applicant, in exercise of the powers conferred under the said notification. Applicant s contention that it is a procedural lapse and same may be condoned is not correct as the competent authority has not allowed the extension of time limit for export of goods beyond six months. In case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
