TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l manner especially when they have admitted that there is no unit in the name of M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. Government observes that there are catena of Court’s judgments that export benefits should not be denied on the ground of procedural lapses, when substantial condition of any scheme/benefit is complied. In the instant case, the substantial condition of payment of duty and export of goods is complied and hence rebate claim can not be rejected on such technical procedural lapses - revision rejected - decided in favor of assessee. - F. No. 198/93/2009-RA-CX - 899/2011-CX - Dated:- 7-7-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary Shri H.C. Srivastava, Superintendent, for the Department. Shri Dharmendra Kr. Singh and Ranjeet Kr. Singh, for the Assessee. ORDER The revision application is filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow against the order-in-appeal No. 41-55-CE/LKO/09 dated 25-2-2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow. M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. Unit-II are the respondent in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent have filed 15 rebate claims under Section 11B of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 not been cleared by M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., and there is no evidence of payment of duty by the manufacturer of the excisable goods i.e. M/s. Ginni Knit Processing in the present case, rebate of duty is not admissible either to M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. or to M/s. Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura. 4.4 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is apparently a grave error of law on the part of the party which can not be brushed aside as a technical or procedural lapse. Therefore, the case laws and Government of India Order-in-Revision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are not applicable in the present case and the rebate claims could not have been allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t (Ginni Knit Processing), which is not in existence at all or printed on invoices. For accepting the fact of payment of Central Excise Duty, the officer should also corroborate the particulars of invoices from the statutory record of the tax payer/manufacturer. However, in this case all the particulars of payment have been tallied from the register of statutory record of respondent by Departmental officers. 5.4 The invoices are prepared or issued by the respondent as the Central Excise Registration No. of the respondent, debit entry made in the Cenvat Register of respondent appeared on invoices and ARE-1 is prepared by the 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such the respondents are not entitled for rebate claim. The Appellate authority decided the case in the favour of respondents. 8.1 Government notes that Department has mainly pleaded that the duty paying document issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing are not supported by any duty payment document/evidence and the claimant can not be treated manufacturer in the case in view of Central Excise Invoice issued by M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. Government further observes that the respondents submitted that there was one inter office memo dated 21-12-2008, wherein it was proposed to give the new name of the respondent s one Unit as Ginni Knit Processing (Unit of M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd.) and the unit of other EOU Unit at Kosi as Ginni Spinning (Unit of M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd.,). Since it takes time to change the name of the units in the record of various authorities (who issued various license/permissions under respective laws), pending change of name in the license/permission, the respondent continued to work as Unit-II of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd., till all the formalities get completed. The respondent also submitted that for this reason they did not approach to the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
