9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial condition of the that notification has been fulfilled, rebate claim is admissible, revision application rejected - 198/69/2009-RA-CX - 500/2011-CX, - Dated:- 20-5-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. S/Shri S.S. Arora, Advocate and Manoj Ratna, Manager for the Assessee. Shri Arun Prakash, Inspector, for the Department. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad, against the orders-in-appeal No. 119, 120, 121-CE/ALLD/08, dated 29-12-2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad with respect to orders-in-original No. 30, 31 32. Reb/07-08, dated 9-4-2008 as passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Varana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manufacturing of export goods. Thus ARE-2 application was strictly required in this case because particulars of Central Excise duty paid on the input used in export goods are required to be mentioned in the Table-2 of the ARE-2 and no such table is provided there in ARE-1 through which the goods were exported by the party. In the circumstances, duty involved in the inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods which are exported through ARE-1 application could not be ascertained. 4.2 The case laws relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) deal with exemption notification whereas Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 under which the goods are exported prescribes procedure only. It does not give any exemption from duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 was not followed by the Respondent. Government observes that under such circumstances only lapse of exporting goods under ARE-1 in place of ARE-2 forms remaining a procedural technical lapse which is condonable. There are catena of courts judgment that notification benefit cannot be denied only on procedural lapses once the substantial condition of the that notification has been fulfilled. In this case there is substantial compliance of procedure laid down in Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and therefore the rebate claim is admissible. 9. In view of discussion above Government do not find any infirmity with the order of Appellate Commissioner and therefore upholds the same. 10. The revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
