9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 the excisable goods shall be exported within 6 months from the date on which they were cleared for export from factory of manufacture. Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 provides specific condition and limitation for the purpose of granting rebate of duty paid on the exported excisable goods. The Clause 2(b) of the said notification stipulates that the excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture, which has been violated by them. Moreover, they have not made any application for extension of time-limit before proper authority. They have not produced any permission granting extension of time limit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of adjudication, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise rejected the claim on the ground that the date of exportation was beyond the stipulated period of six months. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of the Adjudicating Authority, the applicant party filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeal) who disallowed the appeal and upheld the impugned order-in-original. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant party has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following main case grounds :- 4.1 That the Hon ble Appellate Authority did not even consider to discuss the cited judgments of various case laws in favour of applicants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, records of personal hearing and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 7. This revision application was filed by the applicant on 11-6-2010 in respect of order-in-appeal dated 27-1-2010 received on 30-1-2010 after delay of one month and 11 days. The Government finds that the delay has occurred due to the misdelivery of revision application to the IGNOU, New Delhi on wrong address and it was lapse on the part of postal authority. Keeping in view the genuine grounds of delay, Government in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 35EE(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, condone the delay and proceeds to decide the case on its merits. 8. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory due to non-receipt of NOC from the Ministry of Environment and necessary permission from DGFT, New Delhi. But in this instant case neither the assessee has prayed for any extension of time to the proper authority nor could submit any genuine and proper reasons for non-exportation of the said goods within stipulated period of six months. For the rest of citation, government observes the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.) is to be followed wherein it was held that in making claims for refund before the Departmental authority an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
