9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entitled to any refund of the duty paid in view of Notification No. 10/2004-C.E.(N.T) dated 02.06.2004. Bill of lading against which the petitioner had claimed refund of duty are dated 03.06.2004 and 18.06.2004. That means the goods were exported after 02.06.2004 and not prior thereto. The aforesaid two dates are after the cut of date of 02.06.2004. Any process prior to that will be in aid of export and cannot be considered export as such. Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 throws light on the issue as to when the goods are deemed to be exported. Explanation thereto provides that if the goods are exported by sea or air, the date on which the ship or aircraft, in which the such goods are loaded leaves India. In the case in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner submitted that the petitioner is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and manmade yarn which falls under Chapter 52 and 55 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Part of the goods manufactured by the petitioner were for home consumption whereas partly those were exported. 3. Referring to Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short the 2002 Rules‟), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for any goods exported, Central Government may by notification, grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods in terms of the prescribed procedure. In exercise of aforesaid power, notification No. 40/2001-NT dated 26th June, 2001 was issued. Certain conditions had been laid down in the aforesaid not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 17.06.2004. 7. In respect of consignment against Form ARE-1 No. 12 dated 29.05.2004, the goods for export were inspected by the Superintendent of Central Excise. After inspection, the goods were packed in the container and sealed by the Superintendent. Duty amounting to ₹ 3,63,633/- was paid on removal of the goods from the factory premises. Bill of lading was prepared on 10.06.2004 at the Port at Bombay. Receipt was issued signifying the fact that the ship had left the port on 17.06.2004. 8. After the aforesaid goods were exported, claims were made before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise for rebate of duty in respect of goods covered under Forms ARE-1 Nos. 11 and 12, amounting to ₹ 3,65,849/- and ₹ 3,63, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he duty paid keeping in view notification No. 10/2004-C.E.(N.T) dated 02.06.2004, a show cause notice was issued with reference to its claim. The same was rejected by the adjudicating authority. In appeal and revision, the order was upheld. The claim that the date of packing of goods has to be considered is totally irrelevant as it is the date when goods leaves the customs frontier of India. 11. The documents were prepared after 02.06.2004 as the material on record shows that the ship left the port on 03.06.2004 and 18.06.2004. Hence, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the short issue which requires adjudication is as to whether the petitioner would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
