9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned JDR. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. It is seen that the case was posted for hearing on several dates viz 4-7-2008, 8-8-2008, 29-8-2008, 5-11-2008, 5-12-2008, 16-1-2009 and 6-2-2009. But on none of these dates, the appellants appeared for hearing. This is an old case. Hence, it is taken up for disposal on the basis of the material available on record and the arguments advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer provided the manufacturer does not avail of drawback allowed under the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1995, in respect of such duty, as per Notfn. No. 6/2002 dt. 1-3-2002 issued under Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The exports from the premises of a registered manufacture have to be under ARE-1, the format of which is prescribed by Notfn. No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by merchant exporters, and no such declaration was ever filed by them, and the Deputy Commissioner was not convinced by the said letter dt. 26-7-2002 of the appellant that merchant exporters are not availing drawback. It is true that substantial benefits conferred by law ought not to be denied on technical grounds as held by the Hon'ble CEGAT in the cases cited by the appellant. But this is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that they do not claim drawback under Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1995 is of no consequence. This declaration is to be made at the time of clearance of the goods and post-facto declaration-cum-letter provided by the appellants does not enable the Department to verify the factual position. Endorsement on the ARE-1 makes substantial difference in deciding the merit of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
