9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent rebate claims, totalling to Rs.12,17,814/- in terms of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and notification no.19/2004 dated 6.9.2004. The Adjudicating Authority processed such rebate claims and granted such claims as found allowable. The department was aggrieved by such orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority and hence filed appeals before the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner by common order dated 12.11.2010 rejected all the appeals. The department filed revision petition before the Government. Government by impugned order dated 29.6.2012 rejected the revision petition. Hence this petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel Shri Oza for the petitioner and having perused the documents on record, we notice tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondent manufacturer and those exported on the basis of which rebate claims were granted. The respondent before the revisional authority raised following contentions : "8.1 The respondents have pleaded that the goods were undisputedly exported as has been duly certified by the Customs Authorities at the port from where the export have been carried out and all the valid and legal documents supporting the genuine claims were filed by them and the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise has rightly sanctioned the rebate claim after due verification. As regards the state of origin being mentioned as "Maharashtra" instead of "Gujarat" they submitted that the explanation has alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed all the ARE-1s to the effect that goods were exported as per the corresponding shipping bill numbers mentioned on the ARE-1s. The export of said goods has taken place through merchant exporter and the procedural lapses are there, but substantial compliance of provision of law has been established since the ARE-1 form prepared at the factory on which goods are cleared for export contains the customs endorsement regarding of export of goods. 8.3 In view of this position, the corelation of the goods cleared from the factory with the goods exported cannot said to be not established. The check list verified by the Range Officer clearly state that the exported goods were of duty paid natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of non-compliance of prescribed procedure are noticed the department would be justified in viewing such matter as substantial non-compliance of prescribed procedure which may result in rejection of related rebate claim.". 7. We may further notice that before the Adjudicating Authority the respondent had relied on decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu reported in 1983 ELT 1534(SC) wherein it was observed that for refund of small amounts collected wrongly administrative authority should not rely on technicalities. We also further notice that before the said authority, respondent had given a clear undertaking that such instances would not repeat in future. Same was recorded in following manner : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
