9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The applicant has been manufacturing the goods viz. Prednisolone Solution for Injection 30 MG on Loan License basis from M/s. Bagmane Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., Bangalore. M/s. Bagmane has cleared the goods as per the agreement of Loan License on payment of duty under the claim of rebate to the applicant. As per the foreign buyer's requirement said goods had to be exported after period of two months hence applicant kept said goods in their warehouse at Bhiwandi and the same goods has been exported to Uzbekistan and the applicant filed rebate claim to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the rebate claim on the ground that the excisable goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 The applicant states and submits that they had to send the different goods in the same container to the foreign buyer hence they need to store various consignment till the time all other goods gets ready and hence applicant kept goods in their registered warehouse and exported the same along with the other materials required by the same foreign buyer. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that exports of the said goods has been made out of country and the same can be seen from same ARE-1 which was prepared from factory and countersigned by Excise Officials. 4.3 Commissioner (Appeals-I) ought to have appreciated the exports are made against the same ARE-1 from the factory or warehouse and are made within 6 months and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Government observes that the applicant has got their goods manufactured on Loan License basis from M/s. Bagmane, then cleared the goods as per agreement of Loan License on payment of duty. The applicant stored their goods in their warehouse registered under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and subsequently exported the same to Uzbekistan. The Original authority and appellate authority have held that instant rebate claim of Rs. 50,503/- is not admissible, as the goods were not exported direct from factory or warehouse as laid down in condition 2(a) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that applicant has submitted copies of both the documents. The copy of BRC is for Shipping Bill No. 724498, dated 9-4-2009 and IUV No. AG10/Exp/002/09-10, dated 3-4-2009. Under such circumstance, Government is of opinion that the substantial condition of Rule 18 has been complied with and, rebate claim cannot be rejected. The goods were cleared from factory under Central Excise supervision and ARE-1 is signed by the both the partner. There is endorsement of Central Excise as well as Customs on reverse of ARE-1 stating that goods have been exported vide said Shipping Bill. There are catena of court's judgments wherein it has been held that if substantial condition is fulfilled, rebate claim should not be denied for minor procedural lapses. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
