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 102 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRebate claims - Export - duty paid on the inputs viz., Hexane - Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. - HELD THAT:- Govt. notes that inspite of above procedural infractions Commissioner (Appeals), has given categorical findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal that there is sufficient collateral evidences such as RRs, Shipping Bills, Bill of Lading, Bill of export etc., to prove that the respondents have procured Central Excise, duty paid input for manufacturing of the goods exported output of India. Govt. further notes that the original authority has rejected the respondents rebate claim on procedural infraction as evident from personal of perusal of sub para 7.1 above, and in Revision Application also same procedural infractions has been raised. It is not case of the Revenue that the respondents have not procured Central Excise duty paid input for manufacturing of the goods exported out of India Govt., feels that grounds taken by the lower authorities for rejection of the rebate claim is purely of technical nature. Govt., notes that there is catena of judgements of Hon'ble Tribunal/Govt. of India, wherein it is held that substantial benefit of rebate should not be rejected on procedural infractions. The difference between a mandatory rule and a directory rule is that while the former must be strictly observed, in the case, of the latter, substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted. Govt., has also gone through the Hon'ble Tribunals judgement in case of Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad [1997 (1) TMI 271 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], wherein it is held that a substantive benefit, if otherwise due, could not be denied merely on account of minor procedural infractions." Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner [1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] has held that "Distinction to be made between procedural condition of technical nature and a substantive condition-Non observation of the Former condonable while that of the latter not condonable as likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences." Thus, no infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, upholds the same. The Revision Application, accordingly rejected.
|