9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited (the manufacturer). The Petitioners thereafter under 7 invoices (Exhibits- C-1 to C-7 of the Petition) sold 151.500 MTs of the said goods to M/s. H.M. Traders, Mumbai (the exporter). The exporter exported the said 151.500 MTs of the said goods under 3 ARE-1s issued by the Petitioners (Exhibits- D-1 to D-3 of the Petition). The Petitioners also obtained the No Objection Certificate from the exporter for the purpose of claiming the rebate of central excise duty directly from the Central Excise Authorities. 3. The exporter exported the goods to M/s. Classico Trading at Sharjah UAE under the cover of shipping bill Nos. 897232 to 897234 all dated 29th March 2003 after due examination by the Central Excise and Customs Authorities. The exporter also realized the foreign exchange in full through the authorized dealer, who issued the bank realization Certificate No. 500 dated 12th June 2003. 4. The Petitioners filed three rebate claims totally amounting to Rs. 9,87,777/- under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on export of 151.500 MTs of Stainless Steel Sheets in Coils (Hot Rolled). 5. The Respondent No.3 vide his Order dated 20th August 2004 rejected the Petitioners rebate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , not complied with the conditions for claiming rebate as contained in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notifications issued thereunder. The Revisional Authority also relied on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs. Thane Municipal Corporation, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed its earlier view in Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company vs. Commercial Tax Officer (1965) 3 SCR 626, to the effect that a liberal construction of the requirement to furnish a declaration form by a dealer under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, is likely to facilitate the commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences. Therefore, the same cannot be condoned. The Respondent No.2, therefore, allowed the Revision Application. Consequently, the claim of the Petitioners was rejected. 8. Being aggrieved by the said Order of the Respondent No.2 dated 22nd December 2004, the present Petition is filed by the Petitioners. SUBMISSIONS :- 9. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that in paragraph 8.2 of the impugned Order, the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f substantive requirements. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, substantive benefit cannot be denied for procedural lapses. Procedural infractions are to be condoned if exports have actually taken place. 15. It is submitted that the impugned order of the Respondent No.2 in the instant case, is discriminatory in nature and contrary to its own earlier orders and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Cotfab Exports, 2006(205) ELT 1027; Barot Exports, 2006 (203) ELT 321 and the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, 2006(205) ELT 1093. 16. It is submitted that reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited (supra) is also not well-founded. The facts of the said case are distinguishable. Refund of octroi was claimed after lapse of a long time. Further, admittedly declaration in Form-14 was not filed. In the circumstances, there was no scope for verification. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden of octroi would have been passed on to the consumers. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to exercise its discretion and dismissed the SLP. On the other hand, in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as well as the Respondents. 21. The Petitioners have purchased 11 consignments of Stainless Steel Sheets and Coils (Hot Rolled) totaling to 162.405 MTs from M/s. Shah Alloys Limited (manufacturer). According to the Petitioners, after procuring the said export goods from the manufacturer under 11 invoices, the Petitioners sold 151.500 MTs of Stainless Steel Sheets in Coils (Hot Rolled) under 7 invoices of the Petitioners to M/s. H.M. Traders (the exporter). It is an admitted fact that the goods which have been duly exported by the exporter are the goods sold by the Petitioners to the exporter under 7 invoices of the Petitioners. The said goods are exported after physical examination by the Central Excise and Customs Authorities which is supported by the endorsements of the Central Excise and Customs Officials on the relevant export documents, namely, shipping bills, ARE 1, etc. It is also not in dispute that the duty was paid on the exported goods and the sale proceeds of the exported goods have been duly received through the banking channel. 22. The only dispute raised, is that the Petitioners have failed to establish that the goods sold by the Petitioners to the Exporter under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the goods purchased by the Petitioners from the manufacturer are the goods sold by the Petitioners to the exporter and the same have been exported by the said exporter. The Respondent No.2 has, therefore, erred in concluding that the Petitioners could not prove beyond doubt that the goods cleared on the payment of duty for home consumption, were subsequently exported through shipping bills mentioned in the Order in Appeal dated 22nd December 2004. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited (supra), technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure should be cut down especially, where such technicalities are not essential for the fulfillment of the legislative purpose. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held in the case of Formika India vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra) that the benefit should not be denied on technical grounds. Reliance by the Respondents on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Company Limited (supra), is not well-founded. In that case, refund of octroi was claimed after lapse of a long time. Further, admittedly, declaration in Form-14 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
