Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (9) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondent/claimant in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent M/s. Ran's Pharma Corporation, Ahmedabad have filed a rebate claim on 10-7-2006 in respect of excise duty paid on excisable goods, exported by them against different ARE-1s totally amounting to ₹ 3,19,002/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 In terms of procedure contained in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the rebate claim have been scrutinized. It was noticed that the claimant have procured goods from the manufacturer M/s. NGL Fine Chem. Ltd. situated at Plot No. F-11, MIDC, Tarapur, Boisar for export. On going through the invoices and ARE-1s under which th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cation under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before Government on following grounds : 4.1 That the appellate authority has failed to consider that the issue involved in the matter is as to whether the product exported and the product cleared from the factory of manufacturer is one and the same. 4.2 The appellate authority has stressed on the issue that the "Diminazene Aceturate" and "Diminazene Diaceturate" is one and the same, but the original adjudicating authority also agreed to that and has not disputed the same. The reliance placed by the appellate authority on British Veterinary Codex Monograph 65 and the Merck Index is very well discussed by the original adjudicating authority in his order and not disputed. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rred in finding that the difference in product name is a minor technical lapse happened at the Customs end while generating the shipping bills, and procedural infraction/deficiency is condonable. He relied on various decisions i.e. of M/s. Amrutsar Woollen Mills, M/s. Modern Process Printers, M/s. Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Non Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre and many others which are related to procedural lapses only. However, he failed to consider that in the present case the goods cleared from the manufacturer's premises and the goods that exported by the merchant-exporter from Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad are not one and the same. 6. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al value of the goods, tallied with all export documents, which proves that the goods in question have been correctly and actually exported out of India, realization of foreign exchanges have taken place, therefore, difference in the description of the product name in question, whose end use for veterinary purpose, cannot deprive the applicant from their rebate claim, which squarely applicable in the various directives of the Government of India, and other various court rulings of the Apex Court as mentioned below." 6.4 The lower authority has referred following case laws in support of his contention : 2008 (229) E.L.T. 504 (P & H) 2009 (244) E.L.T. 463 (Tri.-Ch) 2007 (216) E.L.T. 465 (G.O.I.) 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1027 (G.O.I.) 2006 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de the Order-in-Original, dated 16-4-2008 and allowed the appeal of the claimant. Now the department has filed this revision application on the ground stated in para 4 above. Department has mainly contended that the appellate authority has failed to consider that the issue involved in the matter is as to whether the produce exported and the product cleared from the factory of manufacturer is one and the same. The goods cleared from the manufacturer premises against the ARE-ls and the Central Excise Invoice and the description appearing on the relevant Shipping Bills against which the goods were exported/shipped do not tally, which are shown as under :- Sl. No. ARE-1 No., Date & Description Description appearing on Invoice Description a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates