9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COURT ] and in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. DCCE [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the rebate claim was rightly held admissible in this case by Commissioner (Appeals) - applicant cannot be allowed to continue repeating the said lapse and keep on claiming rebate of duty paid on exported goods - If the said lapse was repeated the benefit of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 will be liable to be rejected - F. No. 198/417/2010-RA - 737/2012-CX - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. None for the Department. Shri S.S. Jangir, AR, for the Assessee. ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I against the Order-in-Appeal No. 169(DK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim appeared not admissible to the assessee. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee for rejection of the rebate claim of Rs. 19,776/-. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order-in-original rejected the said rebate claim. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order-in-original, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Central Excise, Jaipur-I who observed that meaning of Export Entitlement appears to be a claim of drawback of DEPB. Since in this case the claim of rebate on export of duty paid goods is not an export entitlement, hence in terms of Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006, the assessee has supplied the goods in SEZ only against ARE-1 and as such no Bill of Export was required to be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. Government observes that the respondent supplied the goods to units located in Special Economic Zone and filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claims were rejected by the original authority on the ground that rebate being an export entitlement, the respondent was required to file Bill of export, which they failed to do. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the cases in the favour of respondents. 8. Government observers that in terms of para (5) of Board s Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006, the supply from DTA to SEZ shall be eligible for claim of rebate under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upplier is required to clear the goods to SEZ on the basis of ARE-I and Bill of Export. 8.2 Government notes that in this case Customs Officer at SEZ has certified on the ARE-I that goods have been admitted in full in the SEZ. Therefore receipt of goods in SEZ is not dispute. The fundamental condition for granting rebate of duty paid on exported goods is that duty paid goods are exported. The said fact is not in dispute in this case. The substantial benefit of rebate claims cannot be denied for only lapse of not filing Bill of Export which is a procedural lapse of technical nature as held by Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Suksha International Nutan Gems - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.) and in the case of Mangalore Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
