9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of drugs & medicines. They filed rebate claim under Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 29.06.2004 (Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002) in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their export goods (export of the aforesaid final goods). It was alleged that the goods in question were cleared for export by them (cleared for export vide ARE-2 No. 01 dated 29.06.11 & 02 dated 30.06.11), without obtaining prior permission of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to this effect in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) ibid. The original authority observed that the claimant is entitled for rebate of duty, of input stage; only when they have obtained the proper permission of the jurisdictional Deputy/Asstt. Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 requesting for expeditious action on the application is enough to substantiate the fact of our apprehension of negative consequences with regard to export orders. In fact, we were given to understand that the permission would be granted and letter granting permission would be issued shortly. You would appreciate that the letter C.No.V-CE(30)Tech/Jocund/25/11/5173 dated 11.07.20.11 issued under the signature of Superintendent- (Tech),- Central Excise, Dehradun; is merely a communication about the permission granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun and it does not mention the actual date of permission of the competent authority and therefore, the allegation of clearance of goods for export on 29/30.06.2011 after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and order-in-appeal. 7. Government observes that the original authority had rejected rebate claim of duty paid on inputs used for manufacturing of final export product on the ground that the applicant failed to get input output ratio approved in r/o duty paid materials used in the manufacture of final product before its export and hence, violated the provisions of the Notification No. 21/2004-CE(MT) dated 06-09-2004. The appellate authority has upheld impugned Order-in-Original. Now, applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government observes that as per the Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) read with Chapter 8 of CBECs Excise manual of supplementary instructions, a manufacturer intending to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
