TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India. Govt. further notes that the original authority has rejected the respondents rebate claim on procedural infraction as evident from personal of perusal of sub para 7.1 above, and in Revision Application also same procedural infractions has been raised. It is not case of the Revenue that the respondents have not procured Central Excise duty paid input for manufacturing of the goods exported out of India Govt., feels that grounds taken by the lower authorities for rejection of the rebate claim is purely of technical nature. Govt., notes that there is catena of judgements of Hon'ble Tribunal/Govt. of India, wherein it is held that substantial benefit of rebate should not be rejected on procedural infractions. The difference between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise (Appeals). 2.1 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Sidhartha Soya Products Ltd., (the respondents), filed rebate claims for Rs. 1,86,804/-, Rs. 1,57,777/- Rs. 1,37,221/-, Rs. 1,20,570/-, Rs. 1,34,438/-, Rs. 75,938/- Rs. 1,02,750/- Rs. 1,92,128/- Rs. 1,30,122/- and Rs. 1,08,859/- all dt. 21-5-2002. The rebate of duty paid on the inputs viz., Hexane used in the manufacturer of final products exported to foreign countries has been claimed vide aforesaid rebate claims. 2.2 On perusal of the rebate claims it was observed that conditions set out in Notification No. 41/2001-C.E., dt. 26-6-2001, were not fulfilled by the respondents before the commencement of export. The respondent did not get registered themselves under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 12 ibid provide that if the Commissioner is satisfied that the goods have in fact been exported, he may allow the whole or any part of the claim for rebate even if all or any of the conditions laid down in any notification issued under this rule have not been complied with. There are no such provisions under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. (iii) That the Commissioner (Appeals), has erred in holding the non compliance with the conditions of the Notifications No. 41/2001-C.E., dt. 26-6-2001, as mere procedural lapses and condoning the same when he had no powers to do so. In view of the above the applicant Commissioner pleaded to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and restore the Order-in-Original. 4. Based on the above Revision App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not export the goods on the application ARE-2. 7.2 Govt. notes that inspite of above procedural infractions Commissioner (Appeals), has given categorical findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal that there is sufficient collateral evidences such as RRs, Shipping Bills, Bill of Lading, Bill of export etc., to prove that the respondents have procured Central Excise, duty paid input for manufacturing of the goods exported output of India. Govt. further notes that the original authority has rejected the respondents rebate claim on procedural infraction as evident from personal of perusal of sub para 7.1 above, and in Revision Application also same procedural infractions has been raised. It is not case of the Revenue that the respondents have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
