9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) Order dated 29th Sept. 2006 passed by the Government of India through its Joint Secretary in Revision under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. iv) Notification No. 10/2004-CE(NT) dated 02.06.2004 by virtue of which notification No. 43/2001-NT dated 26th June, 2001 has been amended. II. Mandamus directing the respondent to release the rebate claims as claimed by the petitioner." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a manufacturer of cotton yarn and manmade yarn which falls under Chapter 52 and 55 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Part of the goods manufactured by the petitioner were for home consumption whereas partly those were exported. 3. Referring to R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pected by the Superintendent of Central Excise at the Factory premises. After inspection, the goods were packed in the container and sealed by the Superintendent. Duty amounting to Rs. 3,65,849/- was paid on removal of goods from the factory premises. Bill of lading was prepared on 03.06.2004 at the port at Bombay with a certificate "Clean on Board". Receipt was issued signifying the fact that the ship had left the port on 17.06.2004. 7. In respect of consignment against Form ARE-1 No. 12 dated 29.05.2004, the goods for export were inspected by the Superintendent of Central Excise. After inspection, the goods were packed in the container and sealed by the Superintendent. Duty amounting to Rs. 3,63,633/- was paid on removal of the goods fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty and claim of rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules and the second was without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Rules. In the case in hand, the petitioner cleared the yarn on payment of duty. Two rebate claims were filed. On verification, it was found that the fibre, which was used for manufacture of the yarn exported, was purchased duty free. As the petitioner was not entitled to refund of the duty paid keeping in view notification No. 10/2004-C.E.(N.T) dated 02.06.2004, a show cause notice was issued with reference to its claim. The same was rejected by the adjudicating authority. In appeal and revision, the order was upheld. The claim that the date of packing of goods has to be considered is totally irrelevant as it is the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
