9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice raised by M/S. Jai Glass works in the name of applicant also tallies with respect to quantity, no of packages, Truck No. L.R. No., Description etc. Under such circumstances, mere reliance on stock Register in isolation cannot be a basis of reaching to a conclusion that applicant failed to prove that duty paid inputs have been used in manufacture of final product. As such, the issue needs to be remined in light of all relevant documents to ascertain use of duty paid inputs in manufacturing of final exported products. The original authority is required to carry out the said verification on the basis of original documents and arrive at a decision as to whether the impugned inputs were received and utilized in the manufacture of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim and remaining amount of ₹ 41,316/- and ₹ 608/- have been rejected. While rejecting the amount of ₹ 41,316/- lower authority has given the reason that the applicant have not submitted documentary evidence/records to establish the actual receipt of inputs and its utilization in the manufacture of the finish goods exported under .A.R.E-2 No. 17/2010-11 dated 23.02.2011. 3 Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. 4 Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 Commissioner (A) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not true and not correct therefore not acceptable on the ground that deficiency memo was not issued at one go, a considerable time was lapsed from date of filing of declaration, date of actual export and date of filing rebate claim. Mandatory 30 days notice period was not allowed and entire process of enquiry was initiated much late by the Authority and Notice of Show Cause was issued after expiry of 90 days from date of submission of rebate claim by that time limit the Rebate claim should have released. 4.4 Applicant do not agree with the observation of Commissioner (A) the relevant information was filed on 27.09.2011 and Order-in-Original was signed on 26.09.2011 and Range Superintendent has requested vide his letter dated 06.09.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed rebate claim total amounting to ₹ 61,181/- of duty paid on inputs under notification no. 21/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 read with Rule 18 of Central Excise Rule,2002.The original authority sanctioned part rebate claim of amount ₹ 19256/ and remaining amount of ₹ 41,316/- and ₹ 608/- has been rejected. The rebate claim amounting to ₹ 41,316/- was rejected on the ground that the applicant could not substantiate that the actual receipt of inputs and its utilization in the manufacture of final product could not be established. Amount of ₹ 608/- has been rejected on ground that this amount is with respect to wastage arising due to manufacturing, which was not exported. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid inputs have been used in manufacture of final product. As such, the issue needs to be remined in light of all relevant documents to ascertain use of duty paid inputs in manufacturing of final exported products. The original authority is required to carry out the said verification on the basis of original documents and arrive at a decision as to whether the impugned inputs were received and utilized in the manufacture of the impugned export goods or not. 9, As regard to issue of wastage during manufacture of final export product, Government observes that the said issue has been dealt by the GOI in the case of the same applicant vide Revision Order No. 1109-1118/11-CX dated 29.08.2011 and the matter was remanded back to appellate aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
