9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y from a factory or warehouse for the export thereof, the first and the foremost condition specified at Para 2(a) of N/N. 19/2004 is that the excisable goods must be exported after payment of duty and thus should be established that the goods exported are duty paid. The applicant has failed to establish that the duty paid goods cleared from the factory of the principal manufacturer have only been exported from their place in Gurugram - the rebate of duty in this case has not been rejected merely on the ground that the goods were not exported directly from the factory of the principal manufacturer, but it has also been rejected for the reason that the applicant has not been able to establish that the goods exported by them from a place other than the place of manufacture are the same which were originally cleared by the principal manufacturer from its factory on payment of central excise duty. Applicability of time limitation of one year to the rebate claims filed under Rule 18 and N/N. 19/2004 - The Government finds no legal force in this argument as for refunds and rebate of duty [under] Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is directly dealing statutory provision and it is clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant who mainly reiterated the grounds of revision already pleaded in their above two revision applications. Additionally they also provided the copies of case laws supporting their case. However, no one appeared for the respondent. 4. On examination of the revision applications, Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders and all other relevant records in this case, it is absolutely clear that there is no dispute about the fact that the goods are not exported directly from the factory of the principal manufacturer or the factory of the applicant. Whereas, as per condition 2(a) of the Notification No. 19/2004, the rebate of the duty shall be available only if the goods are exported directly from the factory or warehouse except as otherwise permitted by the C.B.E. & C. by a general or special order. However, it is claimed by the applicant that they have exported the goods from their warehouse which is registered with the department and thereby they have complied the first condition of Notification No. 19/2004 as per which the goods can be exported directly either from the factory or from the warehouse. It is further averred that warehouse is defined as any place or premises registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he more peculiar in this case since the applicant is a manufacturer-exporter also and thus was fully aware about the procedure that the goods can be exported either under department's supervision or under their own self-sealing procedure. Above all, the goods are not physically present at this stage and no one is in a position to verify the fact that only those goods which were cleared from the factory of the principal manufacturer on payment of duty have only been exported by the applicant. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals)'s observation that the identity of the exported goods with the duty paid goods cleared from the factory of the principal manufacturer cannot be established on the basis of their written submissions alone is not found assailable and for the Government it is all the more impossible to arrive at a different conclusion at this stage. The applicant's reliance on C.B.E. & C.'s Circular No. 294/10/97-CX., dated 30-1-1997 is also misplaced as the circular clearly stipulates that only in cases where exporters submit the proof that goods have actually been exported to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority and that where the goods are clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty in this case has not been rejected merely on the ground that the goods were not exported directly from the factory of the principal manufacturer, but it has also been rejected for the reason that the applicant has not been able to establish that the goods exported by them from a place other than the place of manufacture are the same which were originally cleared by the principal manufacturer from its factory on payment of central excise duty. 5. Coming to the applicant's contention that the time limitation of one year is not applicable to the rebate claims filed under Rule 18 and Notification No. 19/2004, the Government finds no legal force in this argument as for refunds and rebate of duty [under] Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is directly dealing statutory provision and it is clearly mandated therein that the application for refund of duty is to be filed with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before expiry of one year from the relevant date. Further in explanation in this Section, it is clarified that refund includes rebate of duty of Excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
