9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned Notification and not following the basic procedure of export as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor or technical procedural lapse for the purpose of availing the benefit of rebate on the impugned goods. As such there is no force in the plea of the applicant that this lapse should be considered as a procedural lapse of technical nature which is condonable in terms of case laws cited by applicant. - Rebate claim denied - Decided against the assessee. - F. No.195/1477/12-RA.CX - ORDER NO.12/2016-CX - Dated:- 25-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by M/S Themis Medicare Limited, Haridwar (herein after referred to as applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. 212CE/MRT-I/2012 dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-l with respect to Order-in-Original No. R-167/2011 dated 26.09.2011, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the applicant are engaged in the manufacture of drugs and medicines. They filed rebate claim of duty for ₹ 28,033/- under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reject amount of rebate claim i.e. ₹ 9860/- out of R.11,056/-. That the order was issued without taking into consideration the grounds of appeal. 4.3.The applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws: Allanasons Ltd 295 (GOI) Krishna Filaments Ltd 2001 (131) ELT 726 (GOI) Moderns Process Printers 2006 (204) ELT 632 (GOI) 5. Personal hearing in the captioned case was held on 04.112015which was attended by Shri S.B. Lal, Consultant who appeared on behalf of the company and submitted a written submission which is as under: 5.1. That the applicant seeks relief from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-in-Appeal which has been passed relying upon incorrect documents or figures and allegations involving procedural lapses of rectifiable nature. 5.2. That the main allegation of rejection of rebate claim was that the input-output declaration in respect of the exported goods was not filed before manufacture and export of the goods. 5.3. That the procedural lapse was admitted and rectified to the satisfaction of the competent authority which verified and agreed to the input-output ratio. That there was no discrepancy in the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 4 and 5 above. 8.Government finds that the Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002 provides that where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by Notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on material used in manufacture or processing of such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such condition or limitation, if any, and fulfillment of such procedure, as may be specified in the Notification. The said procedure is spelt out in Notification no. 21/2004- CE(NT) as amended and provides for rebate from the whole of the duty paid on excisable goods used in the manufacture or processing of export goods under the said Notification. Fulfillment of the conditions laid down in the notification is mandatory. In the case of applicant they have not complied with conditions and provision of Notification No.21/2004-CE (NT) dated 6/09/2004. 9.Government notes that in the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the applicant, a unit registered with Central Excise, availed benefit b} rebate under Rule 18 for inputs used in manufacture of goods for the purpose of export but failed to fulfill the conditions and did not follow the prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, he may grant permission to the applicant for manufacture or processing and export of finished goods. The condition is of such a nature that the declaration has to be filed and verification of the input output ratio is to be carried out prior to export of goods because once the goods are exported no such verification could be possible to ascertain the correctness. 10.3.Government, therefore, holds that non fulfilling the statutory conditions laid down under the impugned Notification and not following the basic procedure of export as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor or technical procedural lapse for the purpose of availing the benefit of rebate on the impugned goods. As such there is no force in the plea of the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
