Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 770 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRevision Application u/s 35EE of CE Act, 1944 - Rebate Claim under Rule 18 of CE Rules, 2002 - Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Hydraulic Press Machines falling under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that:- Customs Officer at SEZ had certified on the ARE-I that goods have been admitted in full in the SEZ - The substantial benefit of rebate claims cannot be denied for only lapse of not filing Bill of Export which was a procedural lapse of technical nature as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Suksha International & Nutan Gems [1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT ] and in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. DCCE [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the rebate claim was rightly held admissible in this case by Commissioner (Appeals) - applicant cannot be allowed to continue repeating the said lapse and keep on claiming rebate of duty paid on exported goods - If the said lapse was repeated the benefit of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 will be liable to be rejected
|