9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ick Sam, Advocate and Ms. W. Omega Arul Selvi, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER The above appeals have been filed by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited, Puducherry (herein after referred to as "the appellant") against the Orders-in-Original No. 511& 512/2009 -RSV dated 11-8-2009 passed by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Commissionerate. 2. Briefly stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quito Repellant Machine had not undergone any process amounting to manufacturing activity before export, show cause notices were issued by the Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai proposing to reject the claims for non-entitlement of rebate as per Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. After adjudication, the Lower Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned Orders-in-Original allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led for rebate under Central Excise Rules. (iv) that Section 2(f)(iii) states that 'manufacture includes any process in relation to the goods specified in the third schedule and involves packing or repacking or such goods in a unit container' and hence it cannot be said that there is no manufacturing activity; (v) that the following decisions show that they are eligible for rebate: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or not the orders of the LAA denying rebate of duty paid on the exported 'Mosquito Repellant Machine' is correct. 5.1 The fact that the impugned goods were exported is not questioned. The only ground under which Lower Adjudicating Authority has rejected the rebate claim, is that there was no activity of manufacture in relation to Mosquito Repellent Machine. But the LAA himself has agreed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
