TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rebate and duty drawback, copies of RG23A Pt-IIs, Triplicate copies of ARE-1s duly verified by range Superintendent and Bank Certificates of Export and realization. 2.1 The goods meant for export were cleared from the factory on 7-7-04 and the said goods were exported on 12-1-05 i.e. after six months and no extension was requested for delayed export. 2.2 In these cases the goods were exported on 12-1-05 and the rebate claims were filed on 22-2-06 i.e. the rebate claim is filed after one year. In light of the provisions contained in the Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 any person claiming refund of duty may make an application for refund of duty to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner before the expiry of one year from the date of leaving of ship in which the same goods are loaded. M/s. Vijaylaxmi Overseas, manufacturer had filed the said rebate claims with the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad-II on 5-6-05 and when the relevant provisions of Section 11B and Rule 18 of Central excise Rules, 2002 were brought to their notice, the manufacturer had withdrawn the said refund claims unconditionally. 2.3 The applicant was is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....control of the applicants is not justified; that in support of above contention relied on the decision in the case of Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ludhiana reported at 2005 (190) E.L.T. 38 (Tri. - Del.). However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals. 3. Aggrieved by these order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed these revision applications on the same grounds as before the Commissioner (Appeals). The additional grounds are : 3.1 The applicants submit that the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is non-speaking to the extent that he has neither considered nor has given any findings on the submissions made by the applicants. The applicants submit that by now it is a well settled principle that a quasi judicial authority while passing the order should consider the submissions made and pass a reasoned order. The orders passed in defiance of the above principle are violative of principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.2 The applicants submit that it has been consistently been held by various courts and tribunals t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se, Div.-IV, Ahmedabad and the said claim was duly scrutinized by the concerned officers but they have returned the claim on the request of the supporting manufacturer. The same fact has been reiterated by the Asstt. Commissioner (Rebate) of Central Excise in his letter dated 14-2-06 (Page 75 of Revision Application). The applicant state that when a claim filed and returned/withdrawn for erasing defects and subsequently filed after erasing the defects, the first date of filing of the claim should be taken into consideration for calculation of time limit prescribed under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. However, in this case, the second time claim had filed also within time limits. In support of their view the applicant relied upon the following case law : (i) Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2002 (150) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-Del.)]. (ii) The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Bhandiguri Tea Estate [2001 (134) E.L.T. 116 (Tri.-Kol.)]. (iii) Govt., of India Order No. 274/2007, dated 10-5-07 in the matter of M/s. Sonal Garments, Mumbai. The applicant submitted that when the appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Salem. (viii) Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (S.C.). (ix) Govt. of India Order No. 267/05 in the matter of M/s. Bhagirath Textile Ltd. (x) M/s. Modern Process Printers, 2006 (204) E.L.T. 632 (GOI). 4. The cases were listed for personal hearing on 27-10-09. Sh R.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel and Sh. Dharmendra K. Singh, Consultant appeared on behalf of the applicant and reiterated the grounds of revision application. 5. Govt. has considered both oral and written submission of the applicant and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. From the perusal of the records, Govt. observes that there is no dispute about the duty paid nature of the goods and their subsequent export and the realization of the sale proceeds of the exported goods. The dispute is regarding the date of submission of rebate claims with the department and the delay in the export beyond a period of six months from the date of clearance of the goods from the factory vide relevant ARE-1s. 7. Govt. observes that the rebate claims wa....