9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he condition of the said procedural lapses are of no help since goods are not exported directly from factory or warehouse and said rebate claim also not admissible Condition of export of goods within six months from their clearances from factory is a mandatory condition of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and non-compliance of the same renders the rebate claims inadmissible. Applicant has failed to submit any permission granted by Commissioner of Central Excise for extension of said six months period. As such the said rebate claim is rightly rejected. Triplicate copies of ARE-1 is required to verify duty paid nature of the goods. Commissioner (A) observed that the applicant did not adduce any evidence to prove that triplicate copies of ARE-1 were given to jurisdictional excise officer of the manufacturer for onward submission to the rebate sanctioning authority and in the absence of the same, duty paid on the goods could not be verified. Government is in agreement with findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard. - No infirmity in orders of Commissioner (A) - Decided against assessee. - F. Nos. 195/1105-1107/2011-R.A.(CX) - 1258-1260/2013-CX - Dated:- 16-9-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isconceived to mean that the goods cleared from factory for export should be directly transported to the port and en route storage of goods would vitiate the said condition. As evident from the above text, the Notification only required that excisable goods should be exported after payment of duty, directly from a factory or warehouse, which has in fact been duly complied by us. The Notification did not, even remotely, suggest that the goods cleared for export from factory/warehouse should be transported directly to the port. In fact, the very second clause in the para 2 of the Notification allowed time period up to six months, from the date of clearance of goods from the factory till its actual exportation. 4.2 In view of the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Commissioner, referring to only the one of the condition of the Notification in isolation and with utter disregard to the other provision of the said Notification is not harmonious construction and defeats the very purpose of the Notification. Hence the order suffers from serious legal infirmities and deserves to be set aside. 4.3 In this regard, we rely on the decision of CESTAT, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods in terms of the said Notification, Board would have certainly relaxed that condition too in the said circular along with condition of direct export of goods from factory. It was obvious that the goods cleared for home consumption were lying at some depot/godown of such manufacturers from where they cleared for exports subsequently. Therefore the conclusion and interpretation of the Notification by the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that goods cleared from factory should have been directly sent to the port of shipment without en route storage is without any basis. 4.6 The observation made in the impugned order that the medicine is not the commodity where identity of goods could be established with duty paying nature of the goods while cleared from factory is incorrect and not in consonance with industrial practice. Entire manufacturing process of the medicines is strictly governed by the provisions of the Drug Law. Batch number allocated to medicines is the distinctly different identity No. and all manufacturing, analytical and clearance records invariably refer to such batch nos. Under the Drugs Law we are also bound to preserve records and samples of each batch til ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that rejecting rebate claims on this ground is not sustainable. 4.9 The Deputy Commissioner has rejected rebate claim No. 28198, dated 4-3-2008 because the goods were exported after six months from the date of removal from the factory. In this matter we would like to clarify that we have removed said goods for export purpose only. Also the payment of duty and export of goods is not in dispute. The goods exported after six months is technical lapse. 4.10 The Deputy Commissioner has rejected 11 rebate claims for non-submission of triplicate ARE-1. In this matter we would like to clarify that, we requested Jurisdictional Range Superintendent to hand over the said triplicate ARE-1 to us for further submission at Rebate sanctioning authority. But the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent have not given it to us therefore we are not in a position to submit the same. In this regard we would like to bring your attention at Para 3(vii)(a) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), 6-9-2004. Where it is clearly mentioned that triplicate application shall be sent to the office with whom rebate claim is to be filled, either by post or by handing over to exporter in tamper proof sealed cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /97-CX, dated 30-1-1997. Since the applicant neither exported the goods directly from factory or warehouse in terms of condition 2(a) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) nor followed the relaxed procedure as prescribed Board s Circular dated 30-1-1997, the rebate claims in respect of the goods which were not exported directly from factory/warehouse, were rightly held inadmissible under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. 8.1 Applicant has contended that the goods were cleared for export from factory on payment of duty under ARE-1 by following self-sealing procedure, that the goods were stored enroute at Bhiwandi in their godown from where consignments were consolidated export order wise and sent in Truck to the port of export, that all the port goods were stuffed in containers in the presence of Customs, that they have not violated the condition 2(a) Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. In this regard, Government observes that condition 2(a) clearly stipulate that excisable goods shall be exported after payment of duty directly from a factory or a warehouse. In this case, applicant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of the packages/goods lying stored should be verified with the particulars given in the application and the AR-4 form, in such manner and according to such procedure as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. 8.4 If the Central Excise Officer deputed for verification of the goods for export is satisfied about the identity of the goods, its duty paid character and all other particulars given by the exporter in his application and AR-4; he will endorse such forms and permit the export. 8.5 The exporter will have to pay the supervision charges at the prescribed rates for the services of the Central Excise Officer deputed for the purpose. 8.6 The disposal of different copies of AR-4 forms should be in the following manner :- (i) the original and duplicate copies are to be returned to the exporter for being presented by him along with his shipping bill, other documents and export consignment at the point of export. (ii) triplicate and quadruplicate copies to be sent to the Superintendent In-charge of the Range in whose jurisdiction the factory from which the excisable goods had been originally cleared on payment of duty is situated. That Superintenden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. In such a situation, it cannot be proved that the duty paid goods cleared from factory have actually been exported. 9. As regard claim where proper rebate sanctioning authority is not mentioned on ARE-1 and other claim where the export is stated to be done under bond without payment of duty on the forwarding letter, the condition of the said procedural lapses are of no help since goods are not exported directly from factory or warehouse and said rebate claim also not admissible as already held in foregoing para. 10. As regards rejection of one of the rebate claims on the ground that the applicant exported the goods after six months from the date of clearance from the factory, Government finds that the condition of export of goods within six months from their clearances from factory is a mandatory condition of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) and non-compliance of the same renders the rebate claims inadmissible. Applicant has failed to submit any permission granted by Commissioner of Central Excise for extension of said six months period. As such the said rebate claim is rightly rejected. 11. As regard to the non-submission at triplicate copies of ARE-1, para 8.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
