Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 781 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate claims - failure to follow procedure prescribed in Board's circular No.294/1O/94-Cx dated 30.1.97 - Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 6.09.2004 - Held that:- Goods have been examined by the Customs at the Place of export of port as per provision of para 7.3 and 7.4 of the Chapter 8 as enumerated above. The Customs Officer has duly endorsed the duplicate copy of the ARE Is, after satisfying himself about the fact that the goods intended for export are the same which were cleared on the relevant ARE-Is Further Superintendent Central excise Range, Jalna has certified that goods cleared under the relevant ARE-Is were cleared from the factory of manufacture on payment of duty. Applicant has been able to prove the export of the duty paid goods by way of various documents duly endorsed by the Customs Officers and Certificate of Central Excise Range Superintendent certifying the duty paid nature of the exported goods. Moreover, the exported goods are co-relatable with the goods cleared from the factory of manufacture as the ARE Is, Shipping Bill, Invoice and Pan Masala Pouches/packages bear the Mark Nos/Batch Nos. of the goods The ratio of the GOI Order No. 54 to 60/09 dated 5.02. 09 in the case of M/s Gujarat Trading Co., Rajkot vs. CCE Rajkot is squarely applicable in this case wherein it has been held that where the exported goods are corelatable with the goods cleared from the factory of manufacture or warehouse, the Procedure prescribed for merchant exporter exporting the goods from a place other than factory of manufacturer or warehouse by the CBEC's Circular 294/10/97-CX dated 30.01.1997 can be relaxed and the rebate is admissible for merchant exporter. Govt. further observes that rebate/drawback etc. are export-oriented schemes. A merely technical: interpretation of procedures etc. is to be best avoided if the substantive fact of export having been made is not in doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given in case of any technical lapse. In Suksha International Vs- UOI [1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. Rebate claims are admissible to the applicant in terms of Rule 18 of Central Excise, Rules; 2002 read with Notification No. 32/2008-CE (NT) dated 28.08.08 subject to verification of duty paid on the exported goods as verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent - Decided in favour of assessee.
|