9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the rebate claims. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that as the applicant has availed drawback, allowing rebate would amount to double benefit. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. The applicant has erred in its contention that as they had posted the application on the last day of the stipulated 3 months period, no condonation of delay is required. The applicant has also failed to give any documentary evidences to justify that there were sufficient cause, which prevented them from filing Revision Application in stipulated time in support of their claim for the delay in filing of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumption that the exporters cannot claim Duty Drawback on the inputs used in the production of export goods and Rebate of duty paid on the final products simultaneously. This view is not supported by any legal submission. Applicants submit that the exporters are eligible for Duty Drawback on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods if the same is covered in the Customs Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules 1995 at the rate prescribed in the drawback schedule. They are also eligible for Rebate of duty paid on the final products as these are the two sets of incentives covered under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules 2002. The only restriction in Duty Drawback' is that the drawback will be restricted to Customs component only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner had passed subsequent claims filed by the applicants and all other assesses. However only this claim was rejected without recording any cogent findings and merely stating that it is for the applicants to prove that the statement submitted are correct. Applicant submits authorities are not following the consistent system of passing the rebate as some time rejecting the rebate and some time passing the claim. Copy of order No.25-R/RM/AC(RC)/M-III/ 12-13 dated 24th May 2012 passed in applicants own case for the subsequent period. 5. It has been observed that the Revision Application was received beyond stipulated 90 days period, hence, the applicant was asked to file application for condonation of delay. In reply the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the impugned Order-in-Appeal was received by them on 15.03.2012. The revision application against the said order was sent on 09.06.2012 within a period of three months. Hence, application for condonation of delay is not applicable in their case. 10. The time limit of filing Revision Application has been specified in Section 35EE (2) ibid which reads as under: 'Section 35EE Revision by Central Government: (1) (1A) (2) An Application under sub-Section (1) shall be made within three months from the date of the communication to the applicant of the order against which the Application is being made: Provided that the Central Government may; If it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
