2011 (5) TMI 764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the respondent M/s. A.G. Enterprises, Agra has filed two rebate claims amounting to Rs. 142288/- and Rs. 139342/- for the duty paid on materials used in the processing or manufacture of exported goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04. They also filed the input-output ratio as required under the aforesaid notification, which was duly approved by the Asstt. Commissioner vide letter dated 26-7-05. The goods were got exported by the party through their merchant exporter under B-1 bond without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The sanctioning authority examined the claim and observed that out of the total amount of R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otice under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the respondent M/s. A.G. Enterprises, Kanpur who vide their written submissions dated 30-1-2011 has mainly stated as follows : 4.1 The applicant department erred in holding that 11 nos. of engines had not been exported. The applicant erred that the Bill of Lading has clearly mentioned that total 109 nos. of engines have been exported. 4.2 The fact that total quantity of exported engines, mentioned in ARE-2 Form, Shipping Bills and relevant Bills of Lading is not disputed by the Department. The only dispute is that the complete details of private marks of engines are not mentioned in Bill of Lading. 4.3 The rejection of part rebate claim on flimsy grou....