TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise, Jaipur ['Commissioner (Appeals-II)'] and the order-in-original dated 16-5-2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs Division, Chittorgarh ('Commissioner'), who rejected the rebate claim made by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner exported a quantity of 26,059.30 sq. metres of processed man-made fabrics to Aden, Yemen and submitted rebate claim of Rs. 49,044/- before the Commissioner under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('the Rules') in respect of central excise duty paid in cash under compound levy scheme. The Commissioner issued show cause notice dated 31-3-2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the rebate claim be not reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals-II) came to the conclusion that by not preparing AR-4 or by getting the export clearances supervised by Central Excise Office and by not following the procedure laid down in Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.), the petitioner has failed to establish the co-relation between the exported goods and duty paid goods and, therefore, the rebate claim was correctly denied to it. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals-II), the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Central Government and the revisional authority by its order dated 27-2-2004 held thus :- "..........It is admitted fact that the applicants neither exported the impugned goods directly from their fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to give effect to the substantive portion of a beneficial legislation. Such mandatory procedures form the main bulwark to safeguard that erroneous claims are not rebated in the garb of real ones. Govt. therefore, is of considered opinion that the cited judgment/orders are not relevant in the case of applicants as it is not evidenced proved beyond doubt that the goods which was cleared from the manufacturing Unit of the applicants for home consumption, have actually been exported. In these facts and circumstances Govt. find no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. Govt. therefore, would agree with the findings and orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)." 7. Consequently, the revision petition was also dismissed. 8. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has failed to establish co-relation between the duty paid goods and the exported goods. 12. The notification dated 30-1-1997 relied on by the petitioner provides as under :- "6. It has, therefore, been decided that the cases where exporters submit the proof that goods have actually been exported to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority, and that where goods are clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared from factory on payment of duty, the condition of exports being made directly from the factory/warehouse should be deemed to have been waived. Other technical deviations not having revenue implications, may also be condoned." 13. The requirement of proof that goods have actually been exporte....