9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty paid on final finished export product. The rebate claim was sanctioned by the original authority after carrying out the verification. The department filed appeal against impugned order-in-original before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 6.9.2004 as declared by them at SI.No.3(b) of the ARE-1. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of department by setting aside impugned order-in-original. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds:- 4.1 The applicants cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rical mistake. Thus, your honour is requested to set aside the present findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.3 It is the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that for filing appeal by the lower authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) is of 3 months. The contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) is totally baseless. Looking to the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 where the period prescribed is 2 months on either side. It is not understood how a period of 3 months have been concluded by him. Moreover order of the lower authority is required to be reviewed by the committee of two Commissioners and thereafter the concerned Commissioner authorize lower authority to file the appeal. No such documents are appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by department before Commissioner (Appeal) against impugned rebate sanctioning order-in-original was time barred having filed after stipulated 2 months period. In this regard Government finds that the appellate authority has dealt with this contention of applicants and held that impugned order-in-original was reviewed within 2 months time limit as prescribed in Section 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and thereafter, appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) within one month of the date of communication of such review order as stipulated in Section 35(E)(4) of the Central Excise Act 1944. Government finds these factual observations have not been controverted by the applicant on the basis of any documentary evidence. Hence, Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-1 form declaration and they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.01. In this case, there is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-1 form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. Under such circumstances, the rebate claims cannot be rejected for procedural lapses of wrong ticking. In catena of judgements, the Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
