9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Brief facts of these cases are as under: 2.1 Brief facts pertaining to R.A.No.195/859/13-RA 2.1.1 The applicant is involved in the export of "Ankur" Biomass Gasifier system', they were not registered as a manufacturer nor availing the facility of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and exported product "Ankur" Biomass Gasifier system Model (non-conventional energy devices) falling under chapter 84 of C Ex Tariff Act, 1985, exempted from duty vide Sr. No. 84 of Notification 06/2006 -CE dated 01.03.2006. The applicant filed rebate claim under Notification No.21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 of duty paid on raw materials i.e. Gas Engine Set procured from M/s. Neptro Renewable Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (a registered dealer), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export directly from the registered factory in which such goods were produced, accompanied by an invoice under rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or from dealers registered for the purposes of the Cenvat Credit. Rules, 2002 under invoices issued by such dealers. However, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order sanctioned the rebate claim, after considering the respondent submissions that though they purchased the raw materials from M/s. Neptro Renewable Energy (I) P. Ltd. who were not registered with the department as a dealer but the goods were directly delivered from the factory of M/s. Sudhir Gensets Limited who were duly registered with the central Excise department and it was only due to commercial reasons, Sudhir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fulfilled by the applicant and claim should not have been rejected. 4.1.4 The Commissioner (Appeal) erred in rejecting the rebate claim without considering the Hon'ble Bombay High court judgement dated April 24, 2013 in UM Cables limited v/s Union of India and others in writ petition No.3102 & 3103. This judgement which is clearly on identical facts clearly states that Excise Rebate cannot be rejected on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate AREs -Submission of AREs is only a procedural requirement under the notification issued under Rule 18. The procedure which has been laid down in the notification is to facilitate the processing of an application for rebate and to enable the authority to be duly satisfied that the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and considering other important and independent documents submitted by the applicant & accepted by the original adjudicating authority which clearly established that input received directly from the registered factory. 4.2.3 The Commissioner (Appeal) erred in allowing the appeal of Excise department and setting aside the impugned order in original of the rebate claim without considering properly the various judicial pronouncements of higher forums that at most, such deficiencies can be considered as procedural lapse while all the substantial conditions were fulfilled by the applicant and rebate refund was in order. 4.2.4 The Commissioner (Appeal) erred in allowing the appeal of Excise department and setting aside the impugned order in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority shall not reject the rebate claim on the ground of non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms if it is otherwise satisfied that conditions for grant of rebate have been fulfilled. Government, therefore, applying the ratio of above said judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the said case, is of the view that the proof of export may be examined on the basis of collateral evidences where original and duplicate ARE-1 form, is not submitted. 9. Government notes that ratio of said judgment is directly applicable to this case and therefore matter has to be examined in the light of the said judgment. In this case, the applicant did not clear the goods under cover of ARE-2 and hence failed to submit original a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they procured the goods directly from factor premises. Under such circumstances, Government finds that the applicant failed to fulfill substantial condition of the said notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) and therefore, rendered themselves liable for rejection of this rebate claim. 11. In view of above, Government sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal covered vide R.A.No.195/859/13-RA and remand the case back to original authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of said judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. A reasonable opportunity of hearing will be afforded to the parties. Government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal covered vide RA No 195/860/13-RA and hence, rejects this revision application, being d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
