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 332 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Act – Procedural infraction do not prohibit the Assessee from the benefit of rebate - Goods had not been directly exported from a factory or warehouse. The warehouse from which the goods had been exported was a dealer’s godown in which duty paid goods were being stored and it was not a warehouse approved under Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – As per Adjudicating Authority, the identity/correlation of the goods originally cleared from the manufacturing unit with goods cleared from the godown could not be established - The Jurisdictional Superintendent has not supervised/verified the goods – Held that:- Identification marks and Batch numbers on the packages are not the only means to identify the goods. It could be done from other means also - The goods, involved was Acetic Anhydride, which is a “Controlled substance” under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 1993, sealing of inlet and outlet of the tankers with tamper proof seal and the description of the said seals has to be entered in the consignment note in Form 3 - A quarterly report has to be submitted to the Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau, when controlled substances are transported from the jurisdiction of one Zonal Director. The controlled substances can be sold to a buyer after establishing his identity and declaration of purpose, for which it is being purchased. Clause 6 lays down the method of labelling of controlled substance for export. The export also requires a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from Central Bureau of Narcotics of Government of India - Applicants had submitted copies of the consignment notes, intimation/returns to Narcotics Control Bureau and Central Bureau of Narcotics - Procedural infractions could not have deprived the applicants of the substantial right of rebate, particularly so when they had kept the Central Excise and NCB department informed at every stage. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Suksha International – [1989 (1) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provisions is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. Similarly Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. DCCE –[1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held the same views while drawing distinctions between procedural conditions of a technical nature and substantive condition in interpreting statute. - Allowed the rebate claims after satisfying that duty paid goods have been exported. Decided in favor of Assessee.
|