2015 (3) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent in this case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent in this case supplied their goods to SEZ and filed claim of rebate of duty paid on such supplies to SEZ. The claims were sanctioned by the original authority vide impugned Orders-in-Original. 3. Department reviewed the impugned order and filed appeal filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that the applicant did not supply the goods under Bill of Export. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of respondent. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant Department has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Department or Customs Department. The legislative scheme does not provide for any other exception or mitigating factor." The claimant has not even come up with any mitigating factor owing to which such condition laid down instruction could be relaxed. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. However, no reply has been received. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in this case on 5-3-2013 was attended by Shri Vinay Kansara, advocate on behalf of the respondent who stated that Order-in-Appeal being legal and proper, may be upheld. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of applicant department. 7. Government has carefully gone through the rele....