TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harma, Assistant Solicitor General of India , for the Petitioner. None, for the Respondent. [Order per: Deepak Gupta, J.]. - Excise Reference No. 16 of 2001 has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing rebate claim of the party when the goods were not exported directly from the factory or warehouse as stipulated under Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 12th September, 1994. 2. Whether the rebate can be granted when the mandatory conditions stipulated under governing Notification No. 41/94-C E (N.T.) (ibid) were not fulfilled by the party." 2. Cross-Reference No. 22 of 2001 has been filed by the assessee wherein it is contended that this Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment. The Depot/Branch Office of M/s. Arisht Spinning Mills at Calcutta was not registered with the excise authority. 5. The assessee M/s. Indian Overseas Corporation filed a rebate claim, claiming that they were entitled to benefit of Rs. 46,064/- in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Shimla. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Shimla, accepted the plea of the assessee that the assessee was entitled to rebate of Rs. 46,064/-. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the department with the Commissioner of appeals, Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh. This appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the assessee straight-way approached the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal. We failed to understand how the Kolkata Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion is whether concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions can be granted without compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the conditions are only directory. 9. In fact, a learned Division Bench of this Court in Ex. Reference No. 16 of 2000, Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd., Barotiwala, decided on 4-7-2008, held as follows:- "Undoubtedly the requirement of the language is clear and unambiguous. The provisions of Statute and the Notification, keeping in view the object and the purpose, had to be fully complied with in letter and spirit. The requirements are mandatory and are not procedural as is sought to be argued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
