TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Chapter 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had exported synthetic yarn through merchant exporters and filed rebate claim of total Rs. 3,05,199/- in respect of three shipping bills together which was sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ankleshwar vide Order-in-Original No. 14/SRT-II/Ank-II/Rebate/2005 dated 12-5-2005. 2.2  The department filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said order-in-original on the grounds that : (i) The order-in-original covers three ARE-1s out of which 2 pertain to rebate of Central Excise duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products exported. Rebate of Central Excise duties paid on inputs is governed by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nput-output ratio declaration in his order, he has categorically stated that he has verified that the condition of the notification were fulfilled before sanctioning the claim. He, further opined that it is not necessary that the JAC should record each and every finding in the order-in-original and as such the Department's contention is not acceptable. And as such rejected the appeal filed by the Department. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 3.1 Whereas, the condition provided under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 stipulating the verification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and that ratio has been shown to the Asstt. Commissioner which is clearly indicate that it is the correct procedure followed by the assessee. Again we have informed to the Department on 19-4-2004 giving the entire information including the input-output ratio which has been received by the Department on 19-4-2004. Hence the main objection raised by the Department is not correct. 4.2 The second objection raised by the department is that out of the three rebate claims, one rebate claim of Rs. 1,11,871/- has been sanctioned on the strength of undertaking from the exporter supported by an FIR. Condition/Procedure No. V of said Notification envisages that procedure specified in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided that benefit cannot be denied due to procedural lapse. Further they requested to quash the department's appeal on the above submissions. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 11-5-2010 & 6-7-2010. Nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. Shri A.W. Ketkar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the submissions of their counter reply. 6. Government has considered the written submissions of the applicant and the oral & written submissions of the respondent and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. From the perusal of records, Government observes that the respondent has submitted a copy of the input/output rat....