Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1131 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTRebate 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:- No advantage can be derived from an order passed by the Government in the case of Philip Electronics India Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 862 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE]. Once the exporter submits proof of the goods having been actually exported to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority, the goods were clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared from factory on payment of duty, then, para 6 of the Circular issued by the Board enables waiving of or technical departure from procedural requirements. Those not having any revenue implications that they can be condoned. All the statutory requirements emerging from Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 are satisfied and neither the Commissioner nor the Revisional Authority has committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record so also their orders cannot be termed as perverse enabling us to interfere in our Writ Jurisdiction - Decided against the revenue.
|