TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 cannot be applied in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Simply ticking a wrong declaration in ARE-1 form cannot be a basis for rejecting the substantial benefit of rebate claim. Under such circumstances, the rebate claims cannot be rejected for procedural lapses of wrong ticking. In catena of judgments, the Government of India has held that benefit of rebate claim cannot be denied for minor procedural infraction when substantial compliance of provisions of notification and rules is made by claimant. - Government finds that once the merits of rebate claims, found to be in favour of applicants, the sanction of same cannot be treated as erroneous and hence, no recovery is warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - F. Nos. 195/842/2012, 195/066 & 891-892/2013-RA - 154-157/2014-CX - Dated:- 21-4-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri Shaikh Shafiq, G.M. (Finance Accounts), for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER These revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, however they failed to follow the mandatory provisions as required under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orders-in- Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (1) (2) table above decided the appeals in favour of revenue. 2.1 Subsequent to Orders-in-Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (1) (2) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) the original authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of already sanctioned rebate claim vide Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2013 and 28-2-2013 mentioned at Sr. No. 3 4 of table. 2.2 The applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) against Orders-in-Original confirming demand of already sanctioned rebate claims. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Orders-in-Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (3) (4) of table above, rejected the applicants appeals. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned four Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these four revision applications under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following common grounds :- 3.1 The Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the purpose of rebate claim. The Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 is applicable to export of goods to all the countries other than Nepal and Bhutan. The condition of said notification stipulates only the above conditions and does not stipulate the conditions which have been taken in the grounds of appeal by the Department before the lower Appellate Authority, therefore, the impugned order which is extraneous to the limitation and conditions of notification needs to be set aside. 3.5 The Appellate Authority which rejecting the refund/rebate claim of applicant has given the following findings :- The ARE-1 under which the goods are exported have been ticked for all the declarations such as (i) the manufacturer has availed cenvat credit of duty paid on in puts used in manufacture of exported goods (ii) the manufacturer has availed the benefit of Notification 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) (iii) the manufacture has availed the benefit of Notification 43/2001. The cursory look at these declarations itself reveal all these three declarations are contrary to each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-6-2001, however they failed to follow the mandatory provisions as required under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Notification 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the cases in favour of department vide Order-in-Appeal dated 18-6-2012 and 10-9-2012. Subsequent to these Orders-in-Appeal mentioned at Sr. No. (1) (2) passed by Commissioner (Appeals) the original authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate claim vide Order-in-Original dated 31-3-2013 and 28-2-2013. The applicant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) against Orders-in-Original confirming demand of already sanctioned rebate claims. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Orders-in-Appeal dated 25-7-2013 and 29-7-2013 mentioned at Sr. No. (3) (4) of table above, rejected the applicants appeals. Now, the applicant has filed these four revision applications on grounds mentioned in para 4 above. 8. Government observes that the applicants exported the goods and filed rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
