9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Registration for the manufacture of Industrial Valves & Spares-falling under Chapter 84818030 and 84819090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicants are availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of duties/taxes paid on the inputs, capital and input services. They are clearing their finished goods both for home consumption and for export on payment of duties under PLA or by way of debit in their Cenvat Credit Account. Removal of goods meant for export are from their factory by adopting self-sealing and self-certification and Central Excise sealing procedures. The applicants filed a rebate claim on 23.082011 for Rs. 35,086/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the mentioned Bill of lading had duly submitted at the time of filing rebate claim. The Applicant had filed all details along with self-attested copy of relevant Bill of Lading for the respective ARE-I on 23.082011 itself and the same was received and acknowledged by the Department on 23.08.2011. The covering letter and copy of the Bill of lading for the same is also enclosed herewith for your perusal. 4.3 The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the instant case there is no error from the applicant's end on production of Bill of lading and even assuming if so, it is in the nature of procedural lapses and rebate claim cannot be denied simply on the ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en submissions made by the appellants and the provisions of Jaw in the subject matter. Rebate claims in respect of following ARE Is have been rejected by the lower authority for reasons mentioned against each. ARE 1 No and Date Reasons for rejection 1744/31.12.2012 EP copy not produced 1736/31.12.2012 BL not produced 1734/31.12.2012 BL not legible Further, in the findings the lower authority referring to above ARE Is observed that rebate could not be sanctioned for want of documents/aberrations in documents. Bill of lading is a document, a self-attested copy of which is required to be filed with rebate claim in terms of CBEC's supplementary instructions, The document is required to be filed for the rebate sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out aspects of physical verification and in respect of two ARE-Is where the rebate claim were rejected for reasons of BL copy being non-legible and EP copy not produced, Commissioner (Appeals) has directed the original authority to satisfy the fact of export of duty paid goods. The appellate authority upheld rejection of rebate claim only in respect of one ARE-I, where BL was not produced. The applicant has not placed on record anything to the contrary. Government finds no infirmity in such detailed finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and hence upholds the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 9. Government also observes that the applicant relied on the various judgments regarding procedural relaxation on technical grounds. The point which needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
