Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + CGOVT Central Excise - 2005 (11) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (11) TMI 100 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate - Proof of Export - Interpretation of statutes - cleared 100% Printed Polyester fabrics - demand - interest - HELD THAT:- In view of the above facts and circumstances Govt., finds force in the contention of the applicants that they have cleared vide the above said AR4s blended MMF of Chapter Heading 55.12 but inadvertantly noted the description of the goods as 100% polyster printed fabrics. In case of Union of India v. Suksha International & Nutan Gems & Anr [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. In Union of India v. A. V. Narasimhalu [1969 (9) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. While drawing a distinction between a procedural condition of a technical nature and a substantive condition in interpreting statute similar view was also propounded by the Apex Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT]. In fact, it is now a trite law that the procedural infraction of Notifications/circulars etc. are to be condoned if exports have really taken place, and the law is settled now that substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedure has been prescribed to facilitate verification of substantive requirements. The core aspect or fundamental requirement for rebate is its manufacture and subsequent export. As long as this requirement is met, other procedural deviations can be condoned. In the present case also, as stated that, the broad description of goods is mainly tallying with the vital documents namely invoices/ARE-I and Shipping Bills and substantially tallying with other collateral evidences like purchase order Bank Realisation Certificate, etc. There is no doubt about the fact of manufacture and export of the goods. Goods have been exported under Customs Supervision certifying that the goods exported are covered by the respective ARI.-1. Govt. thus feels that in view of collateral evidences and fats of manufactured/and subsequent export having been proved by collateral evidences as discussed, demand of duty cannot be enforced merely on account of difference in description mentioned on AR4's/Shipping Bills. Thus, the impugned Order-in-Appeal is not maintainable and Govt., accordingly, sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The Revision Application succeeds with and accordingly allowed.
|