TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from the date of clearance of goods for export from factory. Applicant has not produced any valid permission from the competent authority to export said goods after 6 months. The applicant has violated the provisions of Condition 2(b) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and failed to make compliance of said mandatory condition. Therefore, the rebate claim is not admissible to the applicants under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 r/w Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 195/410/2011-RA - 1767/2012-CX - Dated:- 18-12-2012 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Ganesh Bapu T.R., Advocate, for the Appellant. Nobody, for the Respondent. ORDER This revision application is filed by the applicant M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. (formerly M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.), against Order-in-Appeal No. M-I/RKS/39/2011, dated 1-2-2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-I with respect to Order-in-Original No. 278/R/2005, dated 20-12-2005 passed by Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Mumbai-I. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s. Telco, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 534546/- The rebate claims were initially sanctioned by the original authority vide impugned Order-in-Original. 3. The said order was reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on ground that assessee had exported the goods after expiry of more than two years from the date on which the goods were cleared from the factory and had failed to obtain the permission from the Commissioner, Central Excise, seeking extension for delay in export. After considering all the submissions, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside impugned Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal filed by the department. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The applicants submit that it is not in dispute in the instant case that - (i) the goods were exported; (ii) the applicable excise duty was paid on the goods; and (iii) the claim for rebate was filed within the stipulated time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Having reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 7351 Dt. 20-3-2000 19-3-2001 19-9-2001 19-3-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 10-3-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1740 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 2-2-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1743 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 10-3-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1746 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 2-2-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1829 Dt. 27-5-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January/February 2003 and the vehicles were physically exported in March 2003. Therefore, the applicants respectfully submit that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were not exported within 6 months of their clearance from factory or within extended period allowed by the Department, is of no consequence and liable to be set aside being un sustainable. 4.7 The applicants have placed reliance on the following decisions : (a) Harison Chemicals [2006 (200) E.L.T. 171 (G.O.I.)] (b) Shantilal Bhansali [1991 (53) E.L.T. 558 (G.O.I.)] (c) Commissioner of Cus. C. Ex., Nagpur [2006 (200) E.L.T. 175 (G.O.I.)] (d) Birla VXL Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [1998 (99) E.L.T. 387 - CESTAT, Delhi] (e) Supreme Court in the case of MV Vail Pero v. Fernandex Lopez and another [AIR 1989 SC 2206, 2212 - Para 18] wherein it has been held that (sic) (f) Chemiequip Ltd. v. CCE [1984 (18) E.L.T. 135] - Hon ble Tribunal, Mumbai (g) U.O.I. v. Suksha International Nutan Gems [1989 (39) E.L.T. 503] 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 11-10-2012 was attended by Shri Ganesh Bapu T.R., Advocate on behalf of applicant who reite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
