9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p;Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are engaged in manufacture of Nylon Copolymer Monofil Synthetic Yarn falling under Chapter Sub Heading 5404 10 00 and 3916090 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, had filed rebate claims seeking rebate of Rs. 1,08,170/- being duty paid on the goods exported from their factory in discharge of export obligation under DEEC scheme following self-sealing procedure. The rebate claims were rejected for the reasons that goods cleared under the DEEC Scheme were not examined and sealed by the Superintendent of Central Excise as the self-sealing is not permitted for the goods cleared under DEEC Scheme and no endorsement/certification had been made on all copies of ARE-1s as they followed the self-sealin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of the goods for the reason of which alone the denial of the rebate on not following of the procedure if any is grossly erroneous and incorrect and cannot be legally sustained. 4.3 The appellate authority before approving the finding of the original authority that the procedure envisaged for the clearance of export goods by a manufacturer exporter only involved two option ought to have considered the availability of the third option to such manufacturer exporter to have the export goods examined by the customs officers at the port of exporter which claim of the applicant is also supported by condition No. 3 (para xiv) of the impugned notification specifically brought to his notice, the failure of which totally vitiated his order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27-12-2010 which were received in this office on 6-4-2011 and subsequently on 11-8-2011. The letter is filed with a revised EA-8 only and the contents involved in order-in-original & order-in-appeal and grounds of revision applications are identical to the application filed on 6-4-2011, hence both should be treated as only one revision application which is being decided accordingly. 8. Government notes that the original authority rejected the rebate claim of the applicants on the ground that the goods were cleared for export without under Superintendent's examination and sealing though the export was under DEEC Scheme hence it was contravention of Notification 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailing DEEC benefit. Moreover there are catena of judgments that substantial benefit of rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural lapses. Commissioner (Appeals) has already allowed rebate claims in similar case in the order-in-appeal cited by applicant. Since the export of duty paid goods is not in dispute, the rebate claim cannot be denied. As such, Government holds that in the instant case the rebate claim is admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the original authority is directed to sanction the same if claim is otherwise in order. 10. The revision application succeeds in terms of above. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
