9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 carries on business, inter alia, of manufacture of cosmetics and toilet preparations which are excisable goods. 3. The petitioner company is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. The cosmetics and toilet preparation are cleared for sale in the domestic market as well as for export. 4. By a Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated September 6, 2004, the Central Government granted rebate of whole of the duty paid on excisable goods in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 exported to countries other than Nepal and Bhutan, subject to certain conditions as contained in the said notification. 5. One of the conditions stipula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed time, upon observance of the requisite procedures. 11. On or about 24th August, 2007, a notice was issued by the Respondent No. 1, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the claim of rebate of Central Excise duties totalling to Rs. 1,49,280/- in respect of ARE-1 Nos. 260/2005-06 dated December 23, 2005 and 265/2005-06, dated December 27, 2005 should not be rejected. 12. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that the time gap between the date of clearance of the goods from the factory of the petitioner-company and the date of actual export exceeded six months. Thus, clause 2(b) of Notification 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) had not been fulfilled. The company filed its reply to the show cause notice by its letter d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the revisional application of the petitioner-company under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act. 17. Mr. Bagaria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-company argued that the claim should not have been rejected on the ground of a minor procedural infraction, when the goods had in fact been exported. 18. Mr. Bagaria submitted that the Respondent No. 3 took a hyper technical view overlooking the fact that the consignment in question had duly been exported and had earned foreign exchange for the country. Mr. Bagaria submitted the fundamental requirement of export of the consignment in question having been fulfilled, the procedural infraction should have been condoned. 19. On behalf of the respondents h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding delay in export. The decisions of CESTAT may not binding on this Court. The decisions are, however binding on the respondent authorities. 23. In Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ludhiana, reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 38 (Tri.-Del.) cited by Mr. Bagaria, there was really no delay because the goods had been handed over to the Customs Authorities within the extended period and if there was further delay, the petitioners were in no way responsible. 24. In Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, BBSR-1 v. Birla Tyres, reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 417 (Tri.-Kolkata) the Eastern Bench of CESTAT held that where out of a total quantity of 1334 sets, 1211 sets were exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter does not ordinarily stand to gain by delaying export. Compelling reasons such as delay in finalization and confirmation of export orders, cancellation of export orders and the time consumed in securing export orders/fresh export orders delay exports. 30. As observed above, the notification does not require that extension of time to carry out the export should be granted in advance, prior to the export. The Commissioner may post facto grant extension of time. 31. What is important is, the reason for delay. Even after export extension of time may be granted on the same considerations on which a prior application for extension of time to carry out export is allowed. If there is sufficient cause for the delay, the delay will ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
