TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ug specific product name and the other is “Product Group” name Lasamide as “Drug Intermediates”. This has stated to be done as per the requirement/use of the buyer of the country of destination - Except from the stated difference in nomenclature and classification as per respective tariffs there is neither any charge nor any evidence to suggest that the goods exported were other than the goods actually cleared from the factory of manufacture. Government also takes note of the fact that there are a number of connected documents - In the case of M/s. Cotfab Exports reported as [2005 (11) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA] has held that minor difference in description of goods, being a procedural lapse, was liable to be condoned, since the substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20-8-2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II with respect to order-in-original No. 3390/08-09/AC (Rebate)/Raigad dated 9-2-2009 passed by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that ACCE Rebate, Raigarh the order-in-original No. 3390/08-09/AC (Rebate)/Raigad dated 9-2-2009 sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 1,02,36,875/- to the applicant on export of stated drug Lasamide from the factory under Central Excise supervision. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad in exercise of powers under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reviewed the said order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai on the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 19/2004-N.T. There is no dispute that the appellant has complied with all the procedures as specified in the notification. Therefore, it is submitted that since the conditions of the notification has been complied with, the rebate shall not be denied. 3.2 In all export documents like ARE-1 duly certified by R.O., Shipping bill, BRC and all connected papers, all the contents are matching except description details as given in ARE-1 and excise invoice which is given as Lasamide under tariff heading 2916 31 90 whereas in shipping bill same is mentioned as drug intermediates which is classified under chapter heading 2942 00 90. This is because of the fact that product name is Lasamide whereas product group name is drug intermediates i.e. dr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability of the appeal itself depends on whether revisionary order was passed within time limit as provided under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, or not. On the said issue Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings and therefore appellant again rely on the said submission which is as follows : As per Section 35E(3), revision order has to be passed within the period of 3 months from the date of adjudication of the order. Relied upon cases are (i) M.M. Rubber Co. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) (ii) Billai Wires Ltd. - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 40 (H.P.) (iii) Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 126 (Ahd.). 4. Personal hearings scheduled in this case on 28-2-2012 and 19-4-2012. Shri A.K. Raha, Advocate an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requirement/use of the buyer of the country of destination (i.e. Germany). Government also notes that there exists no evidence on record of any substitution/change of the material cleared from the factory of production under seal and Central Excise supervision upto final exports under checking/verifications by Customs authorities. 7. From above Government observes that except from the stated difference in nomenclature and classification as per respective tariffs there is neither any charge nor any evidence to suggest that the goods exported were other than the goods actually cleared from the factory of manufacture. Government also takes note of the fact that there are a number of connected documents i.e. commercial invoice, Bill of Ladi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant review order has to be necessarily made within the stipulated period of three months from the date of communication of relevant order-in-original which stands issued on 9-2-2009 in this case and shown dispatched in February 2009 vide dispatch No. 3818. Government further notes that said order-in-original herein was reviewed on 17-11-2009 which as per the records available before this authority in any circumstances cannot be taken as having been made within three months of communication of impugned order-in-original. Therefore, Government finds the plea of applicability of Time-bar as hitting to the legality of the said orders of review and appeal by the department as correct. It is quite clear that review order and appeal being tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
