TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hipping bills were not self attested, the invoices showed the name and address of local consignee and did not correlate with the other documents, the goods appeared to have been cleared for home consumption, ARE-1 Nos were not mentioned on the body of invoices, the dates of ARE-1 and removal of goods were different and the manufacturer had not signed the ARE-1s. A deficiency memo-cum personal hearing letter was, therefore, issued to the respondents. References were also made by the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Mumbai-I to various authorities for verification of factual position. After duly considering the submissions of the respondents and the reports received by him, the respondent, sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 4,25,488/- vide the impugned order. 3. The above order was reviewed by the Commissioner, Mumbai-I and an appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on the following grounds : 3.1 For claiming rebate of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of exported goods, the procedure was set out under Notification No. 21/2004- C.E.(N.T.), dated 9-9-2004, which has not been followed by the respondent. Considering the provisions of said notification, the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition for availment of rebate. The Commissioner(Appeals) has traversed beyond the scope and ambit of the defect memo-cum-show cause notice and also beyond the departmental appeal in arriving at the aforesaid finding. Thus the order is based on extraneous grounds and patently unsustainable. It thus deserves to be set aside. 4.2 Vide Circular No. 294/10/97, dated 30-1-1997, it has been clarified that where the exporter submits proof that the goods have actually been exported, the condition of export being made directly from the factory/warehouse of the manufacturer is deemed to have been waived. The aforesaid clarification, issued in context of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994 is squarely applicable in the context of the present case. In the present case the subject matter of exports is Fully Fabricated Vehicles (FBV) which are characterized by a unique engine number and chassis number. Thus it is easily possible to correlate the goods exported and the payment of duty thereon. 4.3 That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding adversely against the applicants on the basis that the invoices issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. were in the name of M/s. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licants under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. It is thus manifest that the rebate had been rightly and properly claimed under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. It is submitted that the reference to procure under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 9-9-2004, after rebate had been allowed under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004, was extraneous to the show cause notice and the proceedings. 4.5 That the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding adversely against the applicants on the following basis. (i) There is no mention on the ARE-1 submitted by the applicants regarding export being under claim of duty drawback or otherwise. (ii) It was not clear from the documents on record that facility of input stage credit was availed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by body builders or otherwise, and if so, whether the impugned goods i.e. FBVs were cleared on payment of Central Excise Duty or otherwise, including value of body building of the vehicles, for payment of duty. In this connection they submitted that : (i) In the subject ARE-1s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no dispute as to ultimate export as by the applicants the failure to produce the duplicate copies of the Central Excise Invoices could not have been held against the applicants. The applicants further submit that there is no requirement for producing duplicate copies of the Central Excise Invoices for the purpose of eligibility to rebate and there is no such stipulation in the manual of supplementary instructions. Thus the impugned order is patently erroneous and mis-conceived. It thus deserves to be set aside. 4.7 That the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the disclaimer certificate issued by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. clearly evidenced that they had not claimed any duty benefit in respect of the subject vehicle and the applicants were the persons entitled to the benefit of the rebate on duty paid by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. Furthermore, the applicants have claimed rebate only on the duty paid by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd. at the time of clearance of the chassis along with the components from their factory. Thus the Superintendent of the I/c of Jamshedpur Range was the proper officer to certify the correctness of the duty paid. Further, it was also verified f....