9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellant are manufacturer of slabs, ingots, blooms, plates, hot-rolled and cold rolled coils/strips of stainless steel falling under Chapter Heading 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period of dispute, they exported their finished products under rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest . He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellant. Against this order of Commissioner, this appeal along with stay application has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is governed by Notification No. 19/2004-C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods out of India was not received and in fact there is not even a dispute regarding proof of export; that actually on facts, this is a case of full realization because small amount of difference has occurred on account of fluctuation of exchange rate; that denial of rebate for non-realisation of full export proceeds is therefore not sustainable; that the impugned order is not correct; that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground of non-realisation of price of goods exported. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not the allegation of the Department that goods cleared from ICD for export were ultimately not exported out of India; or that the proof of export in form of transference copy of the shipping bill was not received. The Department's only objection is that full export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat export proceeds have not been received at all. The allegation is that export proceeds are less than the exports value declared by the appellant for which explanation given by the Appellant is that this is due to exchange rate fluctuation, which prima facie appears to be correct. In view of this there is prima facie a case in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
