9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of duty under Central Excise (Removal or Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of goods) Rules, 2001 for manufacture of excisable goods for export under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Notification No.43/2001-CE(NT) dated 26/06/2001. The appellant were issued an annexure-45 bearing Sl. No. 19/12-13 dated 4/06/12 for procuring of 32 MT of desired goods at the first instance by the Range Superintendent. The appellant further submitted three more applications for procurement of excisable goods without payment of duty for which the permissions were accorded and annexure 45 were issued on 10/10/2012, 31/10/2012 and 23/01/2013 respectively for procurement of excisable goods by issue of annexure 45 as indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grant of requisite permission by the Revenue Authority. He conceded to the fact that the goods were exported before the issue of the permission as required under the aforesaid Rule Notification but emphasized that the substantial benefit under the Notification cannot be denied to them on account of procedural mistake. Undisputedly, the goods had been exported for which the appellant applied for procurement of excisable goods under the Central Excise( Removal or Goods at the Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Goods Rules, 2001)after the export there of and further as the subject goods was replenished with input already exhausted goods previously use for manufacture of export goods and as such there was no violation of either R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny them the benefit contained therein. It is the contention of the Learned Advocate for the appellant that in view of the judgments referred above the procedural deficiency is required to be condoned and the benefit is not to be denied. On the other hand the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order has held that the non-compliance of the condition mentioned in the Notification Rule made them ineligible for the benefit as contained therein on the basis of this Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of case M/s Union Aluminum Co. Company {1991 (55) ELT 454(S.C.)} wherein it is held that non-observance of even a procedural condition is not be condoned, if likely to facilitate to the commission of fraud and administrative inconvenience. Similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
