TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he first and second respondents regarding non grant of rebate of Rs. 5,54,379/- as per Rule 12(1)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the period from May 2000 to March 2001. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of I.V. Fluids which were periodically being exported by the appellant outside the country. It is claimed that the appellant was operating both under Rule 12(1)(b) and Rule 13 respectively which are relating to export. Under Rule 13, it was permissible for the assesse to clear the final products for export without payment of central excise duty by executing a bond equivalent to the central excise duty payable on such goods exported. As regards the exempted goods or goods cleared at nil rate of duty, as an export b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant preferred a revision before the first respondent and in Order No. 147 of 2003 dated 23-7-2003, the revision application having been rejected, the appellant preferred W.P. No. 30730 of 2003 for setting aside the above said orders with a further direction to grant a rebate of Rs. 5,54,379/- as contemplated under Rule 12(1)(b) for the period from May 2000 to March 2001. The writ petition having been dismissed by order dated 2-11-2009 in W.P. No. 30730 of 2003, the appellant has come forward with this appeal. 4. We heard Mr. T. Ramesh learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar learned standing counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking us through Rule 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment of Revenue) Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, was delegated the power of satisfaction of Commissioner as to actual exportation of goods as specified in the proviso under Rule 12(1) and sanction of rebate claim to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (refund) and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. He also contended that the Assistant Commissioner cannot be heard to say that he lacks powers prescribed under the proviso to Rule 12(1). 6. As against the above submission, Mr. T.R. Senthil Kumar learned standing counsel for the respondents only contended that had this power delegated to Assistant Commissioner been brought to notice, there would have been no scope at all for passing the order of rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m can be sanctioned. Inspite of the appellant having brought the said position to the notice of the Original Authority, unfortunately the Assistant Commissioner merely proceeded on the footing that the procedures were not duly complied with. For better appreciation of the appellant's case, it would be worthwhile to read the proviso to Rule 12(1) which reads as follows : "Provided that if the Commissioner of Central Excise or as the case may be Maritime Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that the goods have in fact been exported, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow, the whole or any part of the claim for such rebate, even if all or any of the conditions laid down in any notification issued under this rule have no....