2010 (10) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent Order-in-Appeal No. and date Amount Involved (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. 198/200/08- RA Commissioner, Central Excise, Vapi v. M/s. ACE Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd., Silvassa KRS/208/Vapi/2008 31-7-2008 8811/- 2. 198/201/08- RA KRS/209/Vapi/2008 31-7-2008 17,449/- 3. 198/202/08- RA KRS/210/Vapi/2008 31-7-2008 3133/- 4. 198/203/08- RA KRS/211/Vapi/2008 31-7-2008 10,179/- 5. 198/186/08-RA KRS/207/Vapi/2008 31-7-2008 40,174/- 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the applicants have filed rebate claim for the consignment cleared to SEZ under ARE-1 in terms of para 3 & 4 of Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006. Para 5 of the above circular clearly sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner filed appeals with the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeals and set aside the orders-in-original. 4. 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 : 4.1 That the rebate claim has been made in terms of para 3 & 4 of C.B.E.C. Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006 and para 5 of said circular clearly state that, it shall be eligible subject to the fulfilment of condition laid down thereunder. And para 6 of said circular stipulates that the movement of goods from the place of manufacture to SEZ shall be (i) on the basis of ARE-1 (in cases where export entitleme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to the unit in SEZ area on the basis of the ARE-1 which was duly endorsed by the concerned Range Officer and duly countersigned by the customs officer at the SEZ which is an evidence itself that the goods were properly exported to SEZ area. When there is no ambiguity in the export of the duty paid goods, the rebate of duty paid under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 cannot be denied to the respondent merely on the procedural/technical lapse. In the case of UOI v. Suksha International and Nutron Gems & others - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an interpretation unduly restricting the scope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives w....