9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order passed by the authorities, this Court is the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer any illegality or irregularity in order to interfere with the same since as held by the authorities that the petitioner has not proved by adducing satisfactory documentary evidence that the goods cleared from the factory on payment of duty and the goods exported through the merchant exporter were one and the same and thereby the duty paid character of the goods exported remained unsubstantiated. Petitioner has committed serious lapses and miserably failed to comply with the conditions of the notification and the very basic condition that the goods cleared on payment of duty for home consumption are the same which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were exported through two merchant exports, viz., M/s.Lakshmi Export, Coimbatore and M/s.ISEC, Coimbatore. Since the duty paid goods were exported, the petitioner has filed applications for refund of duty of ₹ 42,50,000/- and ₹ 17,00,000/-. By orders, dated 5.5.2004 and 7.5.2004, the second respondent herein rejected the said applications. Aggrieved by the rejection of the applications, the petitioner preferred first appeals in Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2004 before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which were also rejected by him by order dated 13.9.2004. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed two revision applications before the first respondent. By the impugned order, dated 19.6.2006, the said revision applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Distinction to be made between procedural condition of technical nature and a substantive condition-Non observation of Former condonable while that of the latter not condonable as likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences . 4. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has explained as to how exemption to be interpreted, in the following lines : 12. ..... It appears to us the true rule of construction of a provision as to exeption is the one stated by this Court in Union of India Ors.v.M/s.Wood Papers Ltd. Ors. [1991 JT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E 1 and other export documents and that the petitioner exported same goods subsequently through the merchant exporter which were earlier cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty from the place of production. It is also noted by the Government that the petitioner exported the goods after payment of Central Excise Duty directly from the place of manufacturer or warehouse in terms of Notification No.41 dated 22.09.1994 and the quantity and number of bags of the goods given in the document, however there are no marks and numbers or identification marks of the goods which could prove that the petitioner exported the same goods which were cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty from the manufacturer s place. It is further noted by the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
