Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (7) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 242 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate under Rule 18 - Drug Intermediaries - Description is different in ARE-1 - The department’s main and only ground of claimed rebate to be termed as erroneous is that the products shown in relevant shipping bill is “Drug Intermediates” of TSH No. 2942 00 90 and in Central Excise Invoice/ARE-1 the goods stands named as “Lasamide” classification under TSH No. 2916 31 90. Therefore the item exported is not the very same as cleared from the factory on payment of duty. Held that:- Both the above nomenclature are one and the same for the single export item such as one in Central Excise invoice is “Lasamide” as P.P. Medicament & Bulk Drug specific product name and the other is “Product Group” name Lasamide as “Drug Intermediates”. This has stated to be done as per the requirement/use of the buyer of the country of destination - Except from the stated difference in nomenclature and classification as per respective tariffs there is neither any charge nor any evidence to suggest that the goods exported were other than the goods actually cleared from the factory of manufacture. Government also takes note of the fact that there are a number of connected documents - In the case of M/s. Cotfab Exports reported as [2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA] has held that minor difference in description of goods, being a procedural lapse, was liable to be condoned, since the substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural technical infractions. - Decided in favor of assessee. Period of Limitation - status of review/appeal of the impugned order-in-original by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35E(2) and 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 being time-barred. Held that:- The statute of Section 35E(2) & 35E(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 stands amended w.e.f. 10-5-2008 and the relevant review order has to be necessarily made within the stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of relevant order-in-original which stands issued on 9-2-2009 in this case and shown dispatched in February 2009 – The order-in-original herein was reviewed on 17-11-2009. Thus, cannot be taken as having been made within three months of communication of impugned order-in-original. Therefore, applicability of “Time-bar” as hitting to the legality of the said orders of review and appeal by the department as correct. It is quite clear that review order and appeal being time-barred were liable to be rejected straight way. - Decision against the revenue.
|