9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondent have filed 15 rebate claims under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of export of Cotton Fabrics. On scrutiny of the rebate claims, it was noticed that Excise duty paid invoices were issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura but no unit under the name and address of M/s Ginni Knit Processing, was registered with the Central Excise Department. The respondent submitted the copy of Form-1, Proforma for Monthly Return under Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Capital Goods Register, Service Tax Register and Input Register in support of having paid the duty on the exported goods. Scrutiny of documents submitted by respondent revealed that all the said documents pertain to M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly against the provision of Central Excise law. 4.2 M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. Unit-II, Mathura, the claimant of rebate has stated that they have paid Central Excise duty for the goods exported. But when the goods have been cleared on the invoice issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing, such duty payment by M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., Unit-II, Mathura and such duty particulars shown in the invoices issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing cannot be attributed to the duty paid on goods cleared for export. 4.3 Thus it is apparently clear that the factory M/s. Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura issuing the invoice under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 have not paid the duty in the present case. Therefore, when the goods for export have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is very evident that the Department trying to mislead the facts of this case as Department/applicant has not mentioned/discussed in his appeal about the respondent clarification about the misprinting of name i.e. M/s. Ginni Knit Processing by computer in invoices instead of the clear-cut finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) about the same. 5.2 The invoices were issued by the respondent i.e. by M/s. Ginni filaments Ltd. (Unit-II) not by M/s Ginni Knit Processing. However, the name M/s. Ginni Knit Processing is inadvertently printed on the invoices but duty has been paid or debited by the Credit Register of respondent. For the satisfaction of Revisionary Authority, the Central Excise registration Number appeared on the invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent. Applicant stated that there is no such proof of payment of M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. However, the payment made by the respondent i.e. M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., Unit-II has also not been disputed by the applicant that means the applicant accepted the payment made by the respondent. The respondent inter alia states that only issuing of invoice cannot lead that M/s. Ginni Knit Processing is a manufacturer. For establishing as a manufacturer, a company has to be shown such machinery in their name or they have to maintain the production register, inward or outward register, registration under any Act of law as company or manufacturer and all the things is not with M/s. Ginni Knit Processing instead of that all the required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh and Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent and stated that order-in-appeal is legal and proper may be upheld. 7. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned order-in-original and order-in-appeal. 8. Government observes that the Original Authority had rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the respondent filed the rebate claims on invoices issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura, which was not a registered unit with the Central Excise under the name and address M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. The original authority had held that the respondents could not submit any documents in support of having paid the duty on exported goods and as such the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. mentioned in the ARE-1 and Excise Invoice are same, which has been allotted to M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II (the respondent). Further AREs-1 and Excise invoices (issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing) carries cross reference of respective Excise invoices and ARE-1s. Further same container Nos. are mentioned in AREs-1 filed by the respondent and Excise invoices issued by the M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. All the Excise Invoices issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing carry same address as mentioned in case of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., Unit-II. These invoices were signed by M/s. Ginni Filament, Unit-II under their Rubber Stamp. Moreover, such export invoices were signed by the Departmental officers at the time of sealing of containers at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
