TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Others [2013 (5) TMI 459 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] In order to avail benefit of import stage rebate under notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) the exporter needs to follow certain condition and procedure one of the substantial requirement was to procure the goods directly from manufacturer place. In this case, M/s Sudhir Gensets Limited raised invoices to M/s. Neptro Renewable Energy India Pvt. Ltd. on 9.02.2010, while M/s Neptro has raised invoices to the applicant on 26.02.2010. The applicant could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding such gap of time in issuance of invoices to support their contention that goods were procured directly from manufacturer. As such applicant failed to produce any evidence to show that they procured t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06.09.2004 of duty paid on raw materials i.e. Gas Engine Set procured from M/s. Neptro Renewable Energy India Pvt. Ltd. (a registered dealer), which was used for the manufacture of export item. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicant as they failed to follow the conditions laid down under Notification No.21/2004 CE(NT) issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate claim was rejected vide the impugned order on the grounds that the necessary procedure prescribed under the Notification 21/2004(NT) dated 06.09.2004 had not been followed including submission of original and duplicate copies ARE-2 with their claim for rebate. 2.2 Brief facts pertaining to R.A.No.195/860/13-RA 2.2.1 The briefly stated facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory of M/s. Sudhir Gensets Limited who were duly registered with the central Excise department and it was only due to commercial reasons, Sudhir Gensets raised invoice on Neptro and Neptro in turn raised commercial invoice on Ankur Scientific. 3 Being aggrieved by the said orders-in-original, both applicant party and department filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who decided both the appeals in favour of department. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 Grounds in respect of R.A. No. 195/859/13-RA 4.1.1 The Commissioner (Appeal) erred in rejectin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which has been laid down in the notification is to facilitate the processing of an application for rebate and to enable the authority to be duly satisfied that the two fold requirement of the goods having been exported and of the goods bearing a duty paid character is fulfilled. The procedure cannot be raised to the level of a mandatory requirement -Rule 18 itself makes a distinction between conditions and limitations on the one hand subject to which a rebate can be granted and the procedure governing the grant of a rebate on the other hand. Rebate sanctioning authority is directed to process the rebate claim without insisting on the original and duplicate ARE-1s if it is otherwise satisfied that the conditions for the grant of rebate hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled by the applicant and rebate refund was in order. 4.2.4 The Commissioner (Appeal) erred in allowing the appeal of Excise department and setting aside the impugned order in original of the rebate claim by placing reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in the matter of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune without appreciating the fact that said judgment is with reference to Central Excise Rules and no relevance (direct or indirect) with this case. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 30.9.14 was attended by Shri Vipin Surana, CFO on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records available in c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and therefore matter has to be examined in the light of the said judgment. In this case, the applicant did not clear the goods under cover of ARE-2 and hence failed to submit original and duplicate copies of ARE-2 to the original authority. The original authority needs to examine the whole case in the light of collateral evidences afresh giving due cognizance to the observations made in Hon ble High Court's judgement. 10. Government notes that in respect of Revision Application No. 195/860/13-RA, the rebate claim was rejected by appellate authority on the ground that the applicant procured the input from a firm who was neither a registered manufacturer nor a registered dealer with the department. The manufacturer M/s Sudhir Gen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
