9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 904X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted - respondent has failed to establish that they have exported the very same duty paid goods vide shipping bill as cleared by ARE-1, hence, rebate claims not admissible - - - 1420/2011-CX - Dated:- 20-10-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Atul Sharma and Manu Sharma, Advocates, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application is filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I against the Orders-in-Appeal No. 89 (DK) CE/JPR-I/09, dated 14/18-5-2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-I with respect to Order-in-Original 41/2006-Rebate, dated 27-12-2006 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Jaipur. M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and record of personal hearing, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned Order-in-Original rejected the rebate claim. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the case in the favour of the respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The goods cleared under the ARE-1 No. KAIZEN/2006-07/08 dated 24-6-2006 and Excise Invoice No. E-08 dated 24-6-2006 for export on payment of Central Excise duty, were not the same as shown in the export invoice. Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading and Packing l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well within their rights to claim the facility of rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondents have satisfied all the conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 for seeking claim of rebate of excise duty paid on export goods. 5.2 The respondent submits that they manufacture various grades of Menthol. The goods exported are not of the BP/USP grade but they conform to the BP/USP standards as a matter of quality. The Respondents also state that even though they do not possess the requisite licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, they manufacture Menthol Powder conforming to BP/USP standards and the same was exported in the consignment in dispute. 5.3 The ground for this current Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t now be said that the manufactured goods were not exported by the respondents merely on the ground of difference in description. For this reason itself, the revision application should be rejected. 5.5 At the time of export of the goods, all the documents were there before the customs authorities and the goods were allowed let export without objecting to any alleged variations in the description of goods. It is not the contention of the department that the variation has been made subsequent to the export in order to fraudulently claim rebate under Rule 18. The customs authorities examined the consignment, satisfied themselves that the seals were intact and verified all the documents. Only thereafter, the customs authorities issued the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssionerate under identical facts and circumstances. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 26-7-2010 and 23-8-2011. The Personal Hearing was attended by Shri AtuI Sharma, advocate and Shri Manu Sharma, advocate on behalf of the respondent who reiterated their submissions made in written reply. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. Government notes that the respondent cleared their goods having description as Menthol Powder vide the relevant ARE-1 and Excise invoice and exported the goods vide Shipping Bill No. 7063098 dated 26-6-2006, wherein the description was mentioned as Menthol Powder-BP/USP, TMP 97% . The original Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of Lading. As such, the argument of respondent that mere minor change in the description of goods as Menthol Powder-97% BP/USP is of no consequences is not acceptable. Thus the respondent has not been able to meet the mandatory requirement of claiming rebate that the same goods which have been manufactured, suffered duty, have actually been exported. 11. The ratio of the G.O.I. Order No. 394/07 dated 29-6-2007 is not applicable in the instant case as in that case the respondent M/s. Sharp Aromatics India (P) Ltd. were engaged in the manufacture of Menthol Powder BP/USP under the guidance of the merchant exporter namely Sharp Menthol India Ltd. they were not required to hold an independent drug licence. In that case M/s. Sharp Menthol I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
