TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. These Revision Applications have been filed on same issue, hence being disposed of vide this common order. 2.1 Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Modern Process Printers (the applicant), Bangalore, have claimed rebate of Rs. 4,23,860/- and Rs. 4,31,925/- in respect of 82330.00 Kg. 1,32,574/- of stationery materials exported under the cover of ARE-2 No. 49 dt. 14-2-2003, 51 dt. 21-2-2003, 42, 25/23-12-2002, 43/30-12-02, 44/17-1-03, 45/22-1-03, 46/23-1-03, 47/24-1-03 and 48/11-2-03. 2.2 After scrutiny of the rebate claims the adjudicating authority has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,27,025.00/- and Rs. 1,43,492/- in the rebate claim on the following ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, as required in Para (1) of the said Notification. The jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, has to verify the correctness of the declaration filed by the respondents i.e., verification of input-output ratio etc., as required in Para (2) of the said Notification and formally permit the respondents to manufacture and export the finished goods. In the instant case the respondents have not filed the declaration or the input-output ratio. The input-out ratio has not been verified by the Asst. Commissioner and no permission has been granted by him to the respondents to manufacturer and export the finished goods. As such the vital conditions laid down in the Notification No. 41/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), dt. 26-6-2001, have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Krishna Filaments Ltd., 2001 (131) E.L.T. 726, wherein it was held that mere non-filling of declaration showing consumption, ratios were procedural and non-substantive enough to deny the rebate claim. (ii) That the permission obtained under erstwhile Notification No. 42/94 --- rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 shall be valid even under the present Rules. Further Central Excise Rules, 2002 replaced the above rules and presently Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 governs the rebate for inputs used in the manufacturer of final products which are exported. In this connection your attention is invited to Rule 33 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which deals with the transitional provision. The said rules reads as follows :- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but not admitting that there is a lapse, it is only a procedural lapse, benefit of the rebate claim should not be denied. In this connection reliance placed in the Tribunal decision in the case of Mirza Tanners Ltd. v. C.C.E., 1999 (114) E.L.T. 1032 (Tri.) wherein, it was held that exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. shall be available even if assessee followed the procedural set out under Rule 173N of Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of following the provision of said notification as the lapse is only a procedural lapse. (vi) That the procedural lapse shall not be a condition for denial of any benefit grant under the Act. It is submitted that the appellant has been exporting the goods and all the procedure given under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioning input rebate on the grounds that the applicants have not filed a declaration with the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner of Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise as required in Para (1) of the said Notification; that it has been alleged by the respondents that the appellants has been availing the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 41/2001-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 26-6-2001, without following the conditions and procedures stipulated therein such as submission of a declaration containing the input-output ratio and grant of permission on the basis of such submissions. In this connection it is submitted that under the erstwhile Notification No. 42/94-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 22-9-1994, the appellant had submitted the details of input-output ratio vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in order not to defeat the very purpose of such scheme. In Suksha International v. Union of India, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (SC), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observations was made by the Apex Court in the Formika India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.LT. 511 (SC), in observing that once a view is taken t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
