9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of goods exported, vide various AREs-1 on perusal of the documents submitted by the applicants, it was observed by the original authority that goods were removed for export against letter of undertaking i.e. UT-1, without payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. It was observed that the goods removed for export were not under Rule 18 of the Rules ibid read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 but under Rule 19 of the Rule ibid, and it was evident that amount of rebate was filled as NIL by the applicants. On the basis of above, it was alleged by the original authority that applicants were not eligible to get rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and subsequent payments made to the input suppliers. Regarding declaration for input consumption it is submitted that we had already submitted the same at later stage. The plea that prior submission of such declaration facilitates the department to verify the correctness can be satisfied even at the later stage. This seems to be factual aspects solely based upon the verification of the Excise Invoices on which cenvated inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. The applicants are the registered with Central Excise and are regularly filing the periodical returns to the department. The finished product i.e. leaf spring as declared in the registration certificate and export shipping bill is such whose input consumption can easily be ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. The applicant exported their goods covered vide AREs-1 and filed the rebate claim of duty paid on inputs/goods used in manufacturing of final product in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The original authority, had rejected rebate claim on the ground that goods were removed for export under UT-1 without payment of Central Excise Duty, 2002, under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and applicant has failed to follow the procedure of Rule 18 of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the necessary verification. The switching from one scheme to other without following the prescribed procedure would lead to fraud and administrative inconvenience. Hon ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v DCCE - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.), that Distinction to be made between procedural condition of technical nature and substantive condition - Non observation of the former is condonable while that of the latter not condonable as it is likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences . 9. In view of above Government holds that the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not admissible in this case. Government finds no infirmity in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
