TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Brief facts of the case are that ACCE Rebate, Raigarh the order-in-original No. 3390/08-09/AC (Rebate)/Raigad dated 9-2-2009 sanctioned the rebate claim of Rs. 1,02,36,875/- to the applicant on export of stated drug "Lasamide" from the factory under Central Excise supervision. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad in exercise of powers under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reviewed the said order and filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai on the following grounds : "In the rebate claims No. 20644 dated 17-10-2008 and 24404 dated 28-11-2008 for Rs. 16,84,845/- and Rs. 16,27,146/- respectively, the goods i.e. "LASAMIDE" is classified under Tariff Heading No. 2916 31 90 in Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, the rebate shall not be denied. 3.2 In all export documents like ARE-1 duly certified by R.O., Shipping bill, BRC and all connected papers, all the contents are matching except description details as given in ARE-1 and excise invoice which is given as Lasamide under tariff heading 2916 31 90 whereas in shipping bill same is mentioned as drug intermediates which is classified under chapter heading 2942 00 90. This is because of the fact that product name is Lasamide whereas product group name is drug intermediates i.e. drug intermediate is the broad description as the Lasamide is the drug intermediate. The same can be evident from the copy of the commercial invoice, declaration of the exporter (to comply with origin requirement spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t given any findings and therefore appellant again rely on the said submission which is as follows : As per Section 35E(3), revision order has to be passed within the period of 3 months from the date of adjudication of the order. Relied upon cases are (i) M.M. Rubber Co. - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) (ii) Billai Wires Ltd. - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 40 (H.P.) (iii) Amtrex Hitachi Appliances Ltd. - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 126 (Ahd.). 4. Personal hearings scheduled in this case on 28-2-2012 and 19-4-2012. Shri A.K. Raha, Advocate and Shri Tarun Bhatnagar, Sr. Director attended hearing on behalf of the applicant who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution/change of the material cleared from the factory of production under seal and Central Excise supervision upto final exports under checking/verifications by Customs authorities. 7. From above Government observes that except from the stated difference in nomenclature and classification as per respective tariffs there is neither any charge nor any evidence to suggest that the goods exported were other than the goods actually cleared from the factory of manufacture. Government also takes note of the fact that there are a number of connected documents i.e. commercial invoice, Bill of Lading and BRC etc. which in fact contains both the above nomenclature which clearly establishes the item as one and the same i.e. one which gets cle....