9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Registration No. AAACX0247KXM001 for the manufacture of industrial valves & spares falling under Chapter 84818030 and 84819090 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of duties/taxes paid on the inputs, capital and input services. The applicants are clearing their finished goods both for home consumption and for export on payment of duties. The applicant originally filed a rebate claim on 25.03.2011 for Rs. 24,42,270/- and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Il Division vide Order-In-Original No.43/2011 dated 22.06,2011 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 15,79,699/- and rejected an amount of Rs. 8,62,571/- for reasons citing various discrepancies in expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of procedural lapse and rebate claim cannot be denied especially when the substantial conditions are satisfied. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there is no shortage or excess on the quantity removed from the factory and the quantity exported. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the case of transportation through air cargo, the air freight is being charged by the airline using their own scientific method of calculation and not based on actual. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the method adopted by the airline for calculating the freight cannot be compared with the actual quantity to conclude ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of their contention. 5. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 20.312014 & 6.12015. Hearing held on 6.7.2015 was attended by Smt. Radhika Chandra Shekhar, Advocate on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of the department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, oral & written submissions and perused the impugned Order-In-Original and Order-In Appeal. 7. Government observes that the part rebate claims of Rs. 261381/- was rejected on ground that there is huge variation of weight between AREs-1 and Air Way Bills and as such, it cannot be proved beyond doubt that the goods under the said AREs1 have been exported. Commissioner (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
