TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 15-4-2008, 10 and 11 both dated 27-5-2008 and 14 dated 15-6-2008; that the SCN dated 9-7-2009 was issued with proposal to deny the rebate claim on the ground that the rebate claim in respect of ARE-1 No. 2 dated 15-4-2008 is time barred and for the remaining supplementary invoices, there was no provision to sanction the rebate claim; that on adjudication, the rebate claim was rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has come up with the present appeal. The contentions of the appellant are summarized as under :- (i) that the SCN mentions that the rebate claim was filed under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, but the claim was not filed under Rule 5 but it was filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without any valid reasons. 3. PH was held on 17-3-2010 at 2.30 PM. Shri Ramesh G. Joshi, CA, duly authorized by the appellant appeared before me at 2.30 PM. None appeared from department s side despite intimation. During the hearing, Shri Joshi reiterated the submissions made in the appeal memorandum. 4. I have gone through the case records including record of PH. The issues to be decided in the present appeal is that (i) whether the appellant is eligible to get rebate of duty paid on the supplementary invoices in respect of consignments exported already and original rebate was already paid to the appellant and (ii) whether the relevant date is to be taken as the date of shipment or the date of payment made vide supplementary invoices. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim on the subsequent payment relating to the consignments already exported. Further, there was no dispute regarding export of goods and payment of duty on original clearances. The intention of the government is to pay back the duty paid on the goods exported in the form of refund/rebate. As already held there is no dispute with regard to payment and export of goods, and hence there is no justification to deny the rebate on flimsy ground. Therefore, once it has been held that the rebate has been filed within the time limit, the appellant is legally entitled to get back the duty paid to the government exchequer. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant, by setting asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
