2016 (9) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has not found that, the petitioner did not export Central Excise Duty Paid goods out of India, or that the relevant ARE forms do not bear the appropriate customs endorsements. The alleged procedural lapses for the consignment under consideration have also not been alluded to or identified. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W. P. No. 567 of 2009 - - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntical issues raised by the Commissioner of Central Excise were dealt with in respect of the earlier consignment by the revisional authority, against the department. That being the position, the impugned order ought to be set aside. Learned Advocate for the department has submitted that, the petitioner is not entitled to the claim negative equality. The earlier decision of the revisional author .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ise Duty. It has also noted that, relevant ARE forms bear the Customs endorsement to the effect that, the goods was under Customs supervision. The revisional authority had found that, the petitioner had exported Central Excise Duty Paid goods out of India and consequently, was entitled to the rebate under Section 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. In the present case also, the goods manufact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X