9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/647/2011-RA - 565/2013-CX - Dated:- 14-6-2013 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary None, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER This revision application is filed by M/s. Cooper Pharma Ltd., Dehradun, UP against the Order-in-Appeal No. 18-CE/MRT-I/10-11, dated 28-4-2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-I with respect to Order-in Original passed by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division, Dehradun. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant registered with the Central Excise department, are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Drugs and Medicines . The applicants filed the rebate claim for ₹ 1,69,93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chemes intended to boost export in order to promote exports by exporters to earn more foreign exchange for the country and in case the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, liberal interpretation is to be accorded in case of technical and procedural lapses if any, in order not to defeat the very purpose of such scheme. In the present case, there is no allegation in the show cause notice or any evidence in the impugned orders that the inputs against which the duty has been paid by the applicant are not used in manufacture of export goods. Even there is no evidence on record that the goods in question has not been exported by the applicant and hence in absence of such evidence the rebate claim in question cannot be deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cessing and export of the goods. As such, they violated condition of the notification. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government notes that adjudicating authority in his findings has observed as under :- 4. In the instant case issue is to be decided as to whether the claimant is entitled for rebate of excise duty which was paid by them on inputs used in manufacture of export goods in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. In the show cause notice it is alleged that the claimant has failed to fulfil the conditions of the aforesaid notification inasmuch as that the claimant had failed to o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r export, a write up of manufacturing process. 5. In the said notification it is further laid down that the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall verify the correctness of the ratio of input and output mentioned in the declaration filed before commencement of export of such goods, if necessary, by calling for samples of finished goods or by inspecting such goods in the factory of manufacture or process. If, after such verification, the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is also satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, he may grant permission to the applicant for manufacture or processing and exports of finished goods. However, in the present case, this condition of the notification is not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
