9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1944 (the Act) confirming the Order in Appeal dated 21.6.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mumbai, whereby and whereunder, the Order in Original dated 17th March, 2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) Central excise, Raigad was set aside. Factual Matrix: 3. Factual matrix reveals that the Respondent No.1 preferred two Rebate Claims involving an amount of Rs. 17.55 lacs for the goods exported by them from the Port at Nhava Sheva. The said Rebate Claims were rejected by an order dated 17.3.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Raigad holding that the reversed of CENVAT credit cannot be teated as payment of duty eligible for rebate and that the subject machinery was not export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion that ARE1 was not signed by the manufacturer of the said machinery, as such the application made by the respondent exporter was not tenable. He, thus, submits that the said defect went to the root of the maintainability of the rebate claims. He therefore, submits that the rebate claims were rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad by his order dated 17.3.2006. He further submits that both the authorities, namely the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority did not consider the necessity of signing ARE1 by manufacturer of the said machinery. He, therefore, submits that the impugned orders granting rebate are liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra: 8. The learned counsel ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed into service another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. A.V. Narasimhalu 1983 (13) 1534 (SC), wherein the Apex Court ruled that administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observations are to be found in the case of Formika India Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (SC), wherein the Apex Court observed that once a view is taken that a party would have been entitled to the benefit of the Notification, had they met with the requirement of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical grounds that the time when th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
