TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... six months period from the date of exports as time-barred, and Rs. 39,36,732/56 for non-observance of the procedure prescribed by notifications issued under Rule 12(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal remanded the matter back to the original authority to examine afresh and seek specific direction from the Commissioner in terms of the proviso to Rule 12(1) in respect of those claims that had been rejected on account of non-observance of the procedure. 3.1. The applicants in their revision applications have pleaded that when the substantive provision of the Notification No. 42/94 issued under Rule T2 12(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 have been compiled with, the Commissioner (Appeals) co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Chapter VIA, and keeping this in view the Commissioner (Appeals) not condoning the procedural lapses appears to be correct. To this the ld. Counsel replied as follows : (a) That the power under an Act and under Rules framed under that Act are different. To substantiate his view he cited the Constitution Bench of S.C.'s judgment in Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd v. UOI reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 wherein it was clearly held that the powers under the Act the Rules are not same. (b) That there has to be consistency in interpretation. The Tribunal in more than one case and the GOI in GTC case having given the interpretation on the point, it should not be reopened again. (c) The powers of the Commissioner under Rule 5 have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the original authority that treating the conditions not fulfilled in respect of Notification No. 42/94-C.E.(N.T.), dated 2-9-1994 as basic requirements the said authority has not condoned the procedural lapses, though he was competent to do so vide delegation given to him by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad under Notification No. 1/1997, dated 17-10-1997. Thirdly, from the order of both the authorities below it appears that the impugned claim has been rejected on account of procedural lapses only and not due to any other reason. Thus, the substantive fact of actual export of the goods is not disputed. 6. With the above background Government would examine the propriety and legality of the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal), which the Government of India followed in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. M/s. GTC Exports Ltd. decided on 31-8-1994 and reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 468. The sum and substance of these three orders is that where there is merit in a case, even the Collector (Appeals) could exercise the powers of condonation given in Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In regard to the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) it is observed that vide Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act 1985 (79 of 1985) Section 12A (Powers of Central Excise Officers) was inserted. In this new section vide sub-section (2) the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) were restricted to other than those specified in Section 14 or Chapter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted, have not been disputed by the original authority. The conditions that have not been satisfied among the 24 conditions are :- Sl. No. 3: The appellants had not submitted the required declaration and had also not applied for the permission with the proper officer. Sl. No. 7: The appellants had not used amended AR5 forms. Sl. No. 9: The appellants had not filed the required declaration along with the consumption ratio formula, details of material required, manufacturing process, flow chart, etc. Sl. No. 11: The appellants had not been maintaining records in the proper form i.e., RT 14 and RG 26. Sl. No. l7: AR4s were issued instead of issuing AR5. Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
