TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of the inputs and packing materials used in the manufacture of the export products, under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The rebate was sanctioned to the applicants after due processing. Subsequently the department realized that the applicants have not followed the procedures and conditions prescribed under the relevant Notification No. 21/2004-C.E.(N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the said Rules. Accordingly, demand was raised for recovery of the erroneous refund/rebates. This demand was confirmed alongwith interest. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide three orders-in-original No. Vapi-I/DEM/49, 50, 51/09-08 all dated 24-9-2008 ordered for recovery of erroneously sanctioned rebate claim of Rs. 2,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that they have filed a declaration of the input output ratio on 18-2-2005 and hence, the observation of fact of non-filing of declaration of the input output norms by the learned authorities is factually wrong. 4.4 The applicants submit that the goods are exported and relevant documents along with AR-4 were submitted to the concerned authorities. The departmental authorities accepted the fact of exports. The applicant states that when goods are exported, then procedure does not come in any way for sanctioning rebate claim and in this regard reliance is placed on following decisions : S.V.M. Textile Mills - 2006 (74) RLT 70 (T) = 2006 (199) E.L.T. 270 (Tri.) Dutta Engg. Works - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 311 (T) T.I. Cycles of India - 1993 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orrect declaration and the declaration was not got verified from Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before export. In this regard, applicant has contended that they had filed proper declaration in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 on 18-2-2005. But Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise while confirming the demands observed that declaration dated 18-2-2005 was not correct and correct declaration was filed on 30-8-2007. Government notes that exports were effected vide 8 ARE-2 from 12-8-2005 to 23-2-2006. There is nothing on record that department pointed out any deficiencies in the declaration dated 18-2-2005. The payment of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods is not in dispute. As....