9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Chapter No. 72. The assessee has filed various rebate claims with the JAC, Central Excise, Valsad. 2.1 On scrutiny of the input Invoice of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Mumbai, it appeared that the assessee had not carried out any manufacturing process as per the declaration because the inputs supplied by M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Mumbai falling under Chapter Heading 7217.90 and finished goods exported by the assessee also falls under the same Chapter Heading No. i.e. 7217.90. Since the Chapter-sub-heading in both the invoices (inputs & Finished goods) are same, it was quite possible that no manufacturing activity had been carried out on the raw material, on further scrutiny of the declaration filed by the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-01 superseded by Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 by furnishing input-output ratio and regarding allegation made against the assessee that they have not carried out any manufacturing process and the input as well as finished goods both are falling under the same Chapter-sub-heading, he has held that there is no such condition mentioned in the said Notification. Since the necessary permission was already granted by the JAC and the goods were exported within the stipulated time limit, he set aside the impugned order-in- original passed by the JAC, Valsad being not sustainable. 3. Being aggrieved by these orders-in-appeal, the applicant Commissioner filed these revision applications o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Wire, who filed their counter reply vide letter dated 23-6-07. Their main arguments are as under : (i) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the department on 28-6-06. The appeal was preferred in CESTAT on 26-9-06. The Asstt. Registrar, CESTAT, Mumbai informed the department that it is not filed before the appropriate authority. Thus, department filed the revision application on 18-10-06. Therefore, revision application has been time barred. (ii) On merit also. Revenue Application is not tenable in the eyes of law, in as much as, department is not sure about the manufacturing of Export Goods, as could be seen from the grounds of appeal, Sl. No. 2, which read "It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. has considered oral and written submissions of the applicant, written submissions of the respondent and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. Govt. observes that the Commissioner has filed the revision application after the expiry of the stipulated period of 3 months, but requested for condonation of delay of 20 days as they had initially filed appeal before CESTAT. Hence, Government in exercise of powers under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 condone the delay and takes up revision application for consideration on merit. 8. From the perusal of the records. Govt. observes that the respondent has filed the declaration for availing benefit of rebate of Central Excise duty paid on material used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
