TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 267
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t taken central excise registration. The period of dispute in this case is from 31.12.2002 to 31.03.2003 and during this period, they exported stainless steel utensils under claim for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 of the excise duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the stainless steel utensils. The rebate claims totaling Rs. 9,26,000/- were rejected by the Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 13.11.2004 on the ground that the input duty rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was subject to following the condition and the procedure prescribed in this regard, under Notification no.41/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 read with Notification No. 42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 and th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant, pleaded that the appellant engaged in the manufacture of stainless steel utensils were exporting the same for several years without any objection of any nature whatsoever from the customs department as at no point of time, there was objection from the customs department in respect of the quality, quantity, description and specification of the export consignments, that the exports had been made under shipping bills which were supported by the documents such as export invoices, packing slips for shipment, and bill of lading issued by the Shipping Company, that the certificate issued by the shipping company and bank realization certificate issued by the bankers as evidence of export payments had also been furnished along with rebate claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC) relied upon by the original adjudicating authority, distinction has been made between the procedural conditions of a technical nature for an exemption notification and substantive conditions and it is only the non-observance of the substantive conditions, which can result in denial of the exemption and not the non-observance of the procedural conditions of technical nature and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and pleaded that in terms of the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 where any goods are exported, the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistered dealer, that the export consignments are to be cleared under ARE-2 form, a part of which is to be filled in and signed by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and Inspector, Central Excise and para-B of the ARE-2 is filled-in and signed by the Customs Officers at the port of export, wherein he certifies the date on which the goods were shipped/exported under his supervision, that in this case, the appellant was neither registered with the Central Excise Department nor had filed the required declaration declaring the input-output ratio, description of export products and the inputs, that in absence of the such declaration, there was no opportunity for the department to verify the input-output ratio, that for the purp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dispute, were fully exempt from duty and for this reason, the appellant were not registered with Central Excise Registration. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules provides for rebate of central excise duty paid on the materials used in manufacture or processing of the finished goods exported out of India subject to the conditions to be specified and procedure followed as notified by the Government. The Notification No.41/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 prescribes the necessary conditions for the purpose of input duty ratio and also the procedure to be followed in this regard. The conditions relevant for this case as mentioned in the notification are (a) Filing of the declaration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacturer or from a dealer registered. Even the clearance of the export consignments was admittedly, not under ARE-2 and therefore, there is no question of procedure as prescribed under Notification No.42/2001-CE being followed. The various conditions prescribed under Notification no.41/2002 read with Notification no.42/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001 are meant to prevent the mis-use of this facility and, therefore, these conditions and procedure cannot be said merely of technical nature, the non-observance of which could be condoned. As regards the appellant s plea that standard input-output ratio for stainless steel utensils prescribed in the Exim Policy could be adopted for the purpose of rebate under Rule 18 of the Rules, this plea cann....