TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the respondent M/s. Ran s Pharma Corporation, Ahmedabad have filed a rebate claim on 10-7-2006 in respect of excise duty paid on excisable goods, exported by them against different ARE-1s totally amounting to ₹ 3,19,002/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.1 In terms of procedure contained in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the rebate claim have been scrutinized. It was noticed that the claimant have procured goods from the manufacturer M/s. NGL Fine Chem. Ltd. situated at Plot No. F-11, MIDC, Tarapur, Boisar for export. On going through the invoices and ARE-1s under which the goods cleared from the premises of manufacturer are Rani M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on following grounds : 4.1 That the appellate authority has failed to consider that the issue involved in the matter is as to whether the product exported and the product cleared from the factory of manufacturer is one and the same. 4.2 The appellate authority has stressed on the issue that the Diminazene Aceturate and Diminazene Diaceturate is one and the same, but the original adjudicating authority also agreed to that and has not disputed the same. The reliance placed by the appellate authority on British Veterinary Codex Monograph 65 and the Merck Index is very well discussed by the original adjudicating authority in his order and not disputed. 4.3 The appellate authority has failed to consider that the applicant did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Customs end while generating the shipping bills, and procedural infraction/deficiency is condonable. He relied on various decisions i.e. of M/s. Amrutsar Woollen Mills, M/s. Modern Process Printers, M/s. Indo Euro Textiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Non Ferrous Materials Technology Development Centre and many others which are related to procedural lapses only. However, he failed to consider that in the present case the goods cleared from the manufacturer s premises and the goods that exported by the merchant-exporter from Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad are not one and the same. 6. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. The respondent vide their counter reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been correctly and actually exported out of India, realization of foreign exchanges have taken place, therefore, difference in the description of the product name in question, whose end use for veterinary purpose, cannot deprive the applicant from their rebate claim, which squarely applicable in the various directives of the Government of India, and other various court rulings of the Apex Court as mentioned below. 6.4 The lower authority has referred following case laws in support of his contention : 2008 (229) E.L.T. 504 (P H) 2009 (244) E.L.T. 463 (Tri.-Ch) 2007 (216) E.L.T. 465 (G.O.I.) 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1027 (G.O.I.) 2006 (203) E.L.T. 321 (G.O.I.) 2006 (204) E.L.T. 632 (G.O.I.) 1998 (99) E.L.T. 387 (Tri.-Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment has filed this revision application on the ground stated in para 4 above. Department has mainly contended that the appellate authority has failed to consider that the issue involved in the matter is as to whether the produce exported and the product cleared from the factory of manufacturer is one and the same. The goods cleared from the manufacturer premises against the ARE-ls and the Central Excise Invoice and the description appearing on the relevant Shipping Bills against which the goods were exported/shipped do not tally, which are shown as under :- Sl. No. ARE-1 No., Date Description Description appearing on Invoice Description appearing on Shipping Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achet, gross weight, net weight, total value of the goods tally with all the export documents which also proves that the goods in question have been correctly and actually exported out of India, realization of foreign exchange have taken place. Here substantial requirement of law is fulfilled so the rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural infraction as held by this authority in the case of Cotfab Exports reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1027 (G.O.I.). Moreover the Customs have certified on the ARE-1 that goods have been exported vide relevant Shipping Bill. There is no reason for not accepting said customs certification. 12. In view of above discussions, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
