TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Assessee. Shri A.W. Ketkar, Advocate, for the Department. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Surat-II against the order-in-appeal No. MS/347/SRT-II/2007, dated 26-10-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise Customs, Surat-II. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicant M/s. GSL (India) Ltd. are the manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had exported synthetic yarn through merchant exporters and filed rebate claim of total Rs. 3,05,199/- in respect of three shipping bills together which was sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to sanction rebate on the strength of undertaking from the exporter, in case of loss of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1. 2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order has observed that the declaration of input-output ratio was submitted by the assessee, to the Department well before the commencement of exports as per the conditions of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and thought the JAC has not mentioned the input-output ratio declaration in his order, he has categorically stated that he has verified that the condition of the notification were fulfilled before sanctioning the claim. He, further opined that it is not necessary that the JAC should record each and every finding in the order-in-original a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has objected that duty paid inputs governed by Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 which state that the Asstt. Commissioner should verify the correctness of ratio of input and output mentioned in the declaration before commencement of export. We have filed the input-output ratio to the Department before starting the export which is well before at the time of production and that ratio has been shown to the Asstt. Commissioner which is clearly indicate that it is the correct procedure followed by the assessee. Again we have informed to the Department on 19-4-2004 giving the entire information including the input-output ratio which has been received by the Department on 19-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill, non-production of AR-4 was immaterial. In absence of these, the refund claim can be sanctioned. (ii) Again we rely on the Krishna Filament Limited in Re.: 2001 (131) E.L.T. 726 (GOI) - substantive benefit of export rebate claims was sanctioned even when required procedure was not followed. (iii) In the case of Barot Export in Re.: 2006 (203) E.L.T. 321 (GOI) - it was decided that benefit cannot be denied due to procedural lapse. Further they requested to quash the department s appeal on the above submissions. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 11-5-2010 6-7-2010. Nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. Shri A.W. Ketkar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
