9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng authority stood affirmed. The adjudicating authority had passed an order denying the claim of rebate by the petitioner on goods exported outside India. The reason for denial of the rebate was for not having complied with the conditions for exporting the goods within 6 months of its clearance from the factory/warehouse. 2. According to the petitioner, they are merchant exporter duly registered with the department of Central Excise. They are engaged in the export of goods on the payment of excise duty in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the notification No. 19/2004 Central Excise (NT) dated 06.09.2004. The petitioner is an eligible exporter for grant of rebate i.e. refund of the duty paid on all excisable goods. The requirement under the aforesaid notification dated 06.09.2004 is that the excisable goods shall be exported within 6 months from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of the manufacturer or warehouse. The export can also be made within such extended period as the Commissioner of Central Excise may in any particular case allow. 3. The Commissioner, Central Excise has the powers to extend this period for the reasons t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund of duty paid on excisable goods exported outside India. According to the respondents, entertaining of such application for extension of time where the export could not be made within the stipulated period of 6 months is otherwise a very routine feature and the authorities are required to pass orders taking a liberal view rather than taking a stringent view. The contention of the petitioner is that taking a stringent view while denying the grant of rebate/refund the authorities concerned rather are defeating the very purpose and object of introduction of Export Promotion Scheme. According to the petitioner, the purpose and object behind such export promotion scheme is to provide incentive to boost export and to earn foreign exchange. According to the petitioner, the respondents ought to have appreciated the fact that the substantive fact of the export having been made since there is no doubt on this aspect, the respondents ought to have taken a liberal view. There was also no dispute to the fact that the goods exported by the petitioner the requisite duty has been discharged and paid by the petitioner. Further what has been contended by the petitioner is that the Jurisdicti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on perusal of records, the admitted facts in brief is that the petitioner is an exporter duly registered with the Government and also registered with the Central Excise Department and also entitled for receiving the benefits which flow from the Central Excise statutes as also the circulars and notifications issued by the Government from time to time under the Central Excise Law. On 18.12.2012 since the petitioner could not make the exports within the required 6 months period moved an application for extension of time for making the export from the factory of manufacture/warehouse. Subsequent to the application for extension of time being submitted, the respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice to which the petitioner replied and the respondent No. 5 on 05.06.2014 rejected the explanation submitted for delayed export. The application dated 18.12.2012 seeking extension of time for export of excisable goods was still undecided with the respondents inspite of the petitioner sending several reminders to the office of the respondent No. 4. The said application was finally rejected vide Annexure P/14 dated 10.04.2015. In between the order of the respondent No. 5 in rejecting the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted on the same considerations on which a prior application for extension of time to carry out export is allowed. If there is sufficient cause for the delay, the delay will have to be condoned, and the time for export will have to be extended. In my view, in considering the causes of delay, the Commissioner would have to take a liberal approach keeping in mind the object of the duty exemption, which is encouragement of exports. Of course, in a case of inordinate unexplained delay or a case where the delay has caused loss of revenue to the Government or in a case where there is reason to believe that export has been delayed deliberately with ulterior intention, for example, for higher gain in anticipation price variation, the delay may not be condoned." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner" reported in 1992 (55) ELT 437 (S.C.) has granted full relief to the Assessee and held that 'A public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but it can be estopped from relying on a technicality'. Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval a passage from Francis Bennion in 'Statutory In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
