TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld for being legal and proper. - 195/264/2008-RA - 39/2011-CX - Dated:- 19-1-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri Pankaj Malik, C.A., for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by M/s. Agrawal Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. F-282-284, Road No. 9-J, V.K.I. Area, Jaipur against the Order-in-Appeal No. 74-77 (RKS) CE/JPR-I/2008 dated 17-4-2008 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur with respect to order-in-original No. 119 to 122/Reb./2007, dated 28-12-2007 as passed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur. 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 Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Against these orders the Applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who partly accepted the same and set-aside the penalties imposed but rejection of impugned rebate claim was upheld. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant M/s. Agarwal Marbles Industries Pvt. Ltd. has filed the revision applications under Section 35EE of Central excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 3.1 The Commissioner (Appeals), in the Order-in-Appeal, has simply repeated the charges against the Applicant as were contained in the Show Cause Notice/Order-in-Originals. He has not brought forth any further evidence to support his conclusion about imposition of penalty on the applicant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. It is non-speaking on cited judgment etc. hence liable to be set aside as per case laws :- (i) M/s. Keshoram Rayon v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 312 (T) (ii) M/s. Rasoi Vanaspati Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 169 (CEGATE) (iii) Central Distillary and Chemicals Works, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Rebate claim of duty equal to that paid by the applicants on export goods, the claim for rebate is not deniable. On this ground alone the Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside. 4. Personal hearing in the case matter scheduled for 20-10-2010 was attended by Shri Pankaj Malik, Chartered Accountant, who re-itrated the grounds of the Revision Application as already filed and department (Respondent) sent written submission which are as under :- It has been very clearly discussed in the Order-in-Appeal citing all the provisions on the matter verb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h package or the container in the specified manner and endorse each copy of the application (ARE-1s) in token of having such examination done. The original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 will be handed over to exporter who will present the same before customs. The triplicate copy of application will be sent to the office with whom rebate claim is to be filed. There is nothing on record that exporter applicant has either followed the procedure for sealing of goods and examination of goods at place of dispatch either by Central Excise officer or by self-sealing. In the absence of main document ARE-1 and without following the procedure described above, it cannot be established that goods cleared from factory on payment of duty were actually exported. If the identity of goods cleared 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
