9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id goods is not in dispute, the rebate claim cannot be denied – Thus the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004 – order set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - F.No. 195/237 & 623/2011-RA - Order Nos. 197-198/2013-CX - Dated:- 28-2-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri N. Vishwanathan and S. Baskaran, Advocates, for the Assessee. ORDER These revision applications are filed by the applicant M/s. Superfil Products Ltd, Chennai against the Order-in-Appeal No. 110/2010(M-II), dated 27-12-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai with respect to Order-in-Original No. 2/2009-AC(RF), dated 20-1-2009 passed by Assistant Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r appellate authority exhibited his total revenue bias in not considering the earlier decision of the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the appellant s own case involving identical facts which he is bound to follow. 4.2 The appellate authority further committed gross error and injustice in not taking note of the finding of the original authority in pursuance to the claim of the applicant herein that their finished goods having been cleared on payment of the duty and having been examined at the port of export and therefore the rebate is not deniable to the effect that the show cause notice does not raise any question at all on these aspects and therefore the reply on these lines is off the mark and does not help their ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een alleged in the impugned notice and in any case ought to have accepted that any such stipulation do not affect the payment of the excise duty rebate as the said stipulation could only regulate proper monitoring of the relevant export promotion schemes only and not the grant of the rebate. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 13-12-2012 at Chennai was attended by Shri N. Vishwanathan, and Shri S. Baskaran, Advocates on behalf of the applicants who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has considered the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. On perusal of records, it is observed that the applicants have filed these revision applications against the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onitoring of the relevant export promotion schemes only and the grant of rebate. They further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider his earlier decision in the applicant s own case involving identical facts in which the benefit was given to them. 9. Government notes that in the instant case, there is no dispute regarding payment of duty on goods cleared for export from factory of manufacture and subsequent export of said goods. The manufacturer exporter is allowed as per para 3(a)(i) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, to clear goods for export under self-sealing and self-certification basis. The procedural requirement of getting goods cleared under DEEC Scheme, examined and sealed by Superintende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
