9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Revision Application by any substantial documentary evidences or submission. As such, Government finds force in the observations of Commissioner (Appeals). - Revision application rejected. - F.No.195/622/12-RA - ORDER NO. 25/2016-CX - Dated:- 29-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This Revision Application is filed by M/S Union Quality Plastics Ltd., against the Order-in-Appeal No. US/225/RGD/12 dated 30.03.12 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-Il), Mumbai, with respect to Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants rebate filed under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002 read with Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port along with the goods. Such beneficial scheme should not be denied on flimsy reasons. Exporters have to face number of problems in exporting in the stiff competitive international market and getting the export remittances etc. They are occupied in this important thing that is exporting and getting the foreign currency to our 'country on export, therefore they depend on the employees for filing the rebate claim etc. Sometimes due to heavy work the employees forget to take necessary steps. They do not inform the management also. Same in this impugned case happened, the employee failed to bring to the notice of the rejection of rebate claim to the management. Due to this there is delay in filing the appeal. Further full amount of reba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11.08.2015 was attended by Shri R.V.Shetty, advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. Nobody attend hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in case file, oral written submissions and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government notes that rebate filed under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-CE (N.T) dated 06.09.2004 was rejected partly by the original authority on the ground that the assessable value was mere than FOB value and rebate claim is admissible only upto FOB value. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the same as time barred having filed 27 day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther period of 30 days beyond initial 60 days period has been provided subject to the condition that the sufficient cause has been shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the applicant has been prevented from filing the appeal within aforesaid 60 period. 9. Government notes that in this case, Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned Order in-Appeal, has dealt in detail the aspect of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the applicant in their favour had stated that their concerned employee did not inform management regarding receipt of impugned Order-in-Original and hence, there was delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered this aspect of delay in detail and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
