TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, 2004. Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 contemplates that, the Central Government may grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on material used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and that, the rebate would be subject to such conditions or limitations if any and fulfilment of such procedure as may be prescribed in the notification. The notification dated September 6, 2004 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. The notification dated September 6, 2004 lays down the procedure by which, an application for grant of rebate is to be considered - A claimant making a claim is required to substantiate such claim by cogent evidence. The claim is required to be adjudicated on merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And Mr. Sushanto Dutta, Advocate For the Respondents No. 2 3 : Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Advocate, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Advocate, Mr. Parashar Baidya, Advocate And Ms. Sabnam Basu, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Rahul Sarkar, Advocate DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- The petitioner has assailed an order of the revisional authority dated July 21, 2010. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had exported three shipments of Pyrolisis Gasoline (Py Gas) on payment of excise duty. The Py Gas was produced by using Naptha as raw materials which was imported by the petitioner in terms of the Advance Licence dated September 1, 2003. Imported Naptha is exempt from customs duty. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered by the order in original. He has referred to various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notification dated September 6, 2004 in support of his contentions. He has also relied upon 293 Excise Law Times page 641 (Bom.) (UM Cables Limited v. Union of India) in support of his contentions. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents. He has submitted that, the claim for rebate made by the petitioner was not accompanied by the requisite documents as contemplated in the notification dated September 6, 2004. Such notification was issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise (2) Rules 2002. Since the petitioner fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production or manufacture or warehouse; (xii) In case of self-sealing, the said Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise shall, after verifying the particulars of the duty paid or duty payable and endorsing the correctness or otherwise, of these particulars- (a) Send to the officer with whom rebate claim is to be filed, either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover after posting the particulars in official records, or (b) Send to the Excise Rebate Audit Section at the place of export in case rebate is to be claimed by electronic declaration on Electronic Data Interchange system of Custom; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following officers of Central Excise:- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production of export goods or the warehouse; or Maritime Commissioner. 8.2 It shall be essential for the exporter to indicate on the A.R.E. 1 at the time of removal of export goods the office and its complete address with which they intend to file claim of rebate. 8.3 The following documents shall be required for filing claim of rebate: (i) A request on the letterhead of the exporter containing clam of rebate, A.R.E. 1 numbers and dates, corresponding invoice numbers and dates amount of rebate on each A.R.E. 1 and its calculations, (ii) original copy of the A.R.E. 1, (iii) invoice issued und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notification does not ipso facto result in the claim being invalidated. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner for rebate was accompanied with the original ARE-1 forms. The petitioner submitted the ARE-1 forms with the authorities for consideration. The claim was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and was allowed on appeal. The revisional authority disallowed the claim by requiring the petitioner to produce further documents. Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 require that the rebate claim should be accompanied by the documents stipulated therein. A claimant making a claim is required to substantiate such claim by cogent evidence. The claim is required to be adjudicated on merits. A claimant can su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
