Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 964 - HC - Central ExciseDenial of refund claim - Invocation of Rule 18 - Held that:- Commissioner as also the Revisional Authority proceeded on the basis that the copies of the ARE-1 contained particulars of the letter of undertaking, which clearly goes to show that no amount of duty was paid on the product LSHF HSD. The personal hearing before the Revisional Authority reveals that the two officers of the petitioners, who were present, submitted that after the export it was detected that the product exported was a duty paid item and hence the procedural lapse of submission of the undertaking and following Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 occurred. The goods were duty paid and the goods carried the duty which has been paid and proof thereof was produced Court have not been shown anything which would enable the Revisional Authority and others particularly when such documents were placed on file and it was emphasized that the application for refund of duty is traceable to Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 that they can omit the same from consideration totally. Having found that a clear statement was made in the application as also before us that the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. which is also answerable to the public and Parliament having produced such document that they can be left out of consideration. If Rule 18 was invoked and that is how the impugned orders proceed, then, this material should have been referred to by the Revisional Authority. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|