TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h any explanation as to how the variation in exchange rates has resulted in difference between assessable value and FOB value. Government observes that in their grounds of Revision Application also the applicant could not substantiate their claim of variation in exchange rate. Rather, they have take a new ground that rebate sanctioning authority cannot examine corrections of assessment and full rebate is eligible if central excise duty in paid on CIF value also. Claim of rebate was rightly rejected - Decided against the applicant. - F.No.195/473/2012-RA - ORDER NO. 16/2016-CX - Dated:- 27-1-2016 - SMT. RIMJHIM PRASAD, JOINT SECRETARY ORDER: This revision application is filed by M/S. Anvil Cables Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 The Deputy Commissioner(Rebate), Central Excise Raigad has violated the principle or natural justice in this case, since he has not granted at least three (3) chances of personal hearing to the applicant before issuing the final order rejecting the rebate claim. 4.2 Necessary application for correction of the authority on the ARE-I with whom the rebate claim will be filed was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise Raigad. Hence this mistake on the ARE-I, has been resolved at the level of the said Deputy Commissioner. 4.3 The defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal hearing to the applicant after issuing the show cause notice in this respect, violating the principles of natural justice. 5. The personal hearing scheduled in this case on 13.07.2015, which was attended by Shri Prashant Arya of M/S. R.K. Sharma and Associates Pvt. Ltd., who reiterated grounds of Revision Application. They also relied upon GOI order in case of Ginni Filament Ltd. 2014(0311) ELT 887 (GOI). Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. 6. Government has gone through the relevant case records/ available in case files, oral written submission and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. Upon perusal of records Government observes that the original authority rejected the -rebate claim on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, unambiguously held that the applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements stipulated under Notification No. 19/2004 CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 and also did not follow the instructions given under chapter 8 of CBEC is Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions and rightly held rebate claims inadmissible. Government also notes that appellate authority allowed contention of applicant as required to deficiencies shown at Sr. No. (ii), (iii), (vi) above in as much as he allowed curative action by applicant with respect to correction made in voyage No. of the vessel and he observed that applicant submitted clear self attested copies of Bill of Lading and Shipping bill. On all other counts of deficiency, the Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant seeks rebate under Notification No.42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.0612001, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same cannot be ignored. While claiming the rebate under Rule 19 ibid, the Applicant should have ensured strict compliance of the conditions attached to the Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.0612001. Government place reliance on the Judgment in the case of MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY, 1997 (92) ELT 9 (S.C.) wherein it is held that: concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions cannot be granted without compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the conditions are only directory, 8.3 Government notes that with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
