9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... textile fabrics had fraudulently claimed and obtained the rebate of Central Excise duty on the goods purported to have been exported and further that the goods exported were not the same as mentioned in the duty paying documents, the records pertaining to sanctioned rebate claim of M/s Aggressive, A-2/143 Shah Nahar Inds. Estate. Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 were taken up for scrutiny. 2.2 M/s Aggressive (the applicant No.1), had submitted all the above said documents along with each of their rebate claims, which were taken up for scrutiny. Initial scrutiny of the documents showed that M/s Aggressive, had contravened provisions of rule 12(1) r/w Notification No. 197/62-C.E. dated 17-11-1962, as amended/trade n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons issued to the traders u/s 14 asking them as to produce purchase and sales documents in respect of fabrics sold to M/s Aggressive. Some of the traders responded by submitting written replies that neither they had issued any NOC nor sold any fabrics to M/s Aggressive. Other traders who had issued NOC failed to appear in response to said summons and also did not submit any replies and the summons issued were also returned by the postal authorities with the remark address unknown/not known etc. 2.4 Thus, the applicant had, it appears, contravened Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by claiming rebate on goods which were not exported and also in terms of provision of Notification 197/62 dated 17-11-1962, they had not exported goods direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icants filed an Appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), rejected the appeal as time barred u/s 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without going into merit of the case. 4. In the Revision Application the applicant No.2 made following main pleadings :- (i) That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), has erred in rejecting the appeal as time barred, without considering the actual date of receipt of the Order-in-Original, appealed against, and without offering personal hearing. (ii) That the Company has put forth the detailed grounds in its Memorandum of Appeal, explaining the legal and factual position of the cases. The applicant hereby adopt the submissions made in the said Memo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of said rule. In view of the above the applicants requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5. The applicant No. 1 filed Revision Application on following main grounds:- (i) That under Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944, the service of decision, order Show Cause Notice etc., is complete only on service thereof i.e., when received by the person and not on the date of issue based on the settled of law on the issue. (ii) That the service of the Order-in-Original dated 5-12-2000, was complete only on 11-8-2004, i.e., date on which the order was served upon the applicant and received by the applicants and hence, filing of appeal within sixty days i.e., on 3-9-2004, is within time. (iii) That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or export and actually exported in view of physical supervision of both Central Excise Customs Officers. In view of the above the applicant requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. The case was heard on 4-10-2005, and S/Sh. M.H. Patil, (Advocate) Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, along with Sh. Mohan C. Gurdasani, (Proprietor), appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the applicant. They reiterated contents of their Revision Applications. 7.1 Govt. has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions alongwith the cited judgements. Govt., notes that first issue for decision is as on which date the Order-in-Original No. 107-108/2000 dated 5-12-2000, was served on the applicants? Whether the said Order-in-Original was serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
