9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for export of the goods under claim for rebate. In this case, admittedly, neither the necessary declaration describing the export product and the materials to be used with input-output ratio was made to the jurisdictional Asstt./Dy. Commissioner and, therefore, the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities had not opportunity to verify the input output ratio. Besides this, it is not possible to verify as to whether the appellant procured the inputs directly from a manufacturer or from a dealer registered. Even the clearance of the export consignments was admittedly, not under ARE-2 and therefore, there is no question of procedure as prescribed under Notification No.42/2001-CE being followed. As regards the appellant's plea that standard input-output ratio for stainless steel utensils prescribed in the Exim Policy could be adopted for the purpose of rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules, this plea cannot be accepted, as the condition for rebate as prescribed in the Notification no.41/2001-CE(NT) requires input-output ratio to be declared to the jurisdictional central excise authorities and its verification, which has not been done in this case. In fact, if the appellant s plea is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot even substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Notification no.41/2001-Cus (NT) and, therefore, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC), the rebate cannot be sanctioned, as the conditions prescribed in this case are not of technical nature but have to be treated as substantive conditions meant to prevent the commission of fraud. The Asstt. Commissioner also observed that input ouput norms adopted by the appellant on the basis of Exim Policy are not valid, as for the purpose of claiming input duty rebate under Rule 18, the appellant should have declared input duty ratio, offered the same for verification by the jurisdictional central excise officers, which was not done. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-original dated 8.12.2005 upheld the Asstt. Commissioner s order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Rajiv Tuli, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant engaged in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions and it is only the non-observance of the substantive conditions, which can result in denial of the exemption and not the non-observance of the procedural conditions of technical nature and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that in terms of the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate would be subject to conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure as prescribed in the notification, that this is a case of claim for rebate of central excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the finished goods, which had been exported, that for rebate of excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture/processing of export goods, the Central Government has prescribed the procedure and conditions under notification no.41/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-observance of which would result in denial of the benefit, that in this regard he relies upon the Apex Court s decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Vs. Thane Municipal Corpn, Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) ELT 454 (SC) and also the Apex Court s decision in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune -2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC) and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. During the period of dispute, the appellant had manufactured stainless steel utensils from duty paid stainless steel flats. Stainless steel utensils, during the period of dispute, were fully exempt from duty and for this reason, the appellant were not registered with Central Excise Registration. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules provides for rebate of central excise duty paid on the materials used in manufacture or processing of the finished goods exported out of India subject to the conditions to be specified and procedure followed as notified by the Government. The Notification No.41/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
