9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the applicant is the beneficiary in the claim of rebate. Revision application rejected - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.195/1479/12-RA-CX - ORDER NO.11/2016-CX - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - 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. 202-CE/MRT-1/2012 dated 23207.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut-l with respect to Order-In-Original No. R-221/2011 dated 24.11.2011, 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 ₹ 75,238/- under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their export goods. The rebate sanctioning authority vide Order In-Original No. R-221/2011 dated 24.11.2011 rejected the rebate claim of ₹ 75238/- on the grounds that the applicant has manufactured and exported the finished goods before filing the requisite declaration under the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which did not even form part of the Order-In-Original of the adjudicating authority. 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 of the submitted rebate claim. 5.4. The applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws: M/S Murii Agro Products Ltd, Nagpur 2006 (200) ELT 175 (GOI) (JOI vs AV. Narasimhalu 1983 ELT 1534 (SC) Order No. 1513-1514/2012-CX dated 05.11.2012 2014 (313) ELT 924 (GOI) 5.5. That the provisions as to filing of declaration are intended to allow the proper officer to verify the correctness of the ratio of input and output mentioned therein and to draw satisfaction that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty. That this satisfaction was in fact, drawn by the proper officer in instant case and needful permission was issued. That the purpose of declaration was met with and therefore the denial i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of 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 procedure in respect of some of the ARE 2. 10. In reference to the above, Government first proceeds to examine the conditions stated to be not fulfilled as laid down under Notification No. 21/2004CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 10.1. Government observes that export of goods under claim for rebate on inputs used in manufacture of export goods is governed by Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Chapter 8 of CBEC's Central Excise Manual and finds that first condition laid down is that of filing of declaration which states that the manufacturer or processor shall file a declaration with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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. 11. Government notes that nature of above requirement is both a statutory condition and mandatory in substance for removal of goods for exports under claim for rebate of duty either on the final goods exported or on the inputs contained therein. 11.1. It is in this spirit and this background that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din, Abdul Gani - (AIR 1980 SC 3403) has observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and/or simple technical nature is to be judiciously done. When non-compliance of said requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
