9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 2. Briefly stated that the applicant M/s. Agrawal Marble & Ind. Pvt. Ltd. manufacturer of Marbles and Granite filed four rebate claims of duty paid by them on the Granite Slabs cleared from their factory premises for export through merchant exporters under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On examination of the above said rebate claims, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur (i.e. the adjudication authority) observed that as per the provisions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 the export could have been made either by exercising the option of examination and sealing of the goods by the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of removal of the goods from the factory by filing the triplicate copy of the ARE-1. Thus it appeared that the applicant had not complied with the conditions and procedure prescribed under the said Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 disentitling them to claim rebate of duty. Accordingly, the applicant was issued impugned Show Cause Notices vide which they were called upon to explain why their rebate claims should not be rejected. After hearing the applicant, the adjudication authority adjudicated the above four Show Cause Notices vide impugned orders rejecting their rebate claims and imposing of penalty of Rs. 5000/- in each case under Rule 25 of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 744 (Gujarat). (vi) Union of India and Others v. Security and Finance (P) Ltd. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1562 (S.C.) (vii) Satellite Engineering Ltd. and Others v. Union of India - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 356 (Bombay) (viii) M/s. BASF India Ltd., New Delhi v. Collector of Central Excise - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 534 (Tribunal). 3.2 It is the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 wherein the procedure for self sealing of goods and there examination at the place of dispatch and export has been laid down. In the said procedure it has been specified that the applicant have option of exporting the goods sealed at the place of manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for reasons best known to him has not even discussed the said judgments in the Order-in-Original what to say of distinguishing their applicability to the present case. Therefore, the said order is Non-Speaking order and is liable to be set aside. In support of contention as above reliance is placed on the following judgments :- (i) D. Balkrishna & Co. v. Commissioner of Cus. Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 631 (Tri.) (ii) Yaswant Electricals Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 865 (Commr. Appl.) (iii) Chamunda Inds. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 556 (Tri. -Mum.) 3.4 Now when it has clearly been established that the applicants are correctly and legally entitled to Rebat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by not following the self sealing and certification procedure while clearing the impugned goods from factory of manufacture for export. This export lacks the basic requirement of either self-sealing or departmental - sealing along with respective examination/certification thereof with required formality of filing of ARE-1s within stipulated time. 7. In reference to above, Government first proceeds to peruse and analyze the statutory status and requirements of the Form "ARE-1". Government notes that Condition 3(iv) (Procedures) for claiming rebate of duty on exports Impugned goods under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-09-04 as issued under Rule 18 of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared from factory with those exported cannot be established, the duty paid nature of exported goods is not proved. 8. From above, Government is of the opinion that nature of above requirement is vital as statutory condition of compulsory requirement of submitting the ARE-1 copies is a must because such leniencies lead to possible fraud of claiming an alternatively available benefit which may lead to additional/double benefits. This has never been the policy of the Government and it is the spirit of this background that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sharif-ud-Din. v. Abdul Gani - AIR 1980 S.C. (303) and 2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bombay) has observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
