TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are engaged in procuring P or P Medicaments falling under chapter Heading 30 of CETA 1985 from actual manufacturers and export the same to their foreign buyers. The applicants had filed a rebate claim claiming rebate amount to Rs. 238960/- under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (Rebate), Raigad Commissionerate against export of P or P Medicaments under ARE-1 No.38 dated 22.12.2007. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide his OIO No.3651/08-09 dated 6.3.2009 sanctioned the rebate claim. The said order-in-original was reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that some of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s: 4.1 The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad 'N' Division, as communicated by the Supdt. (Tech.) vide his letter C.No.V/Tech/30/106/08-Misc dated 24.10.2008 had granted permission for export of the remaining 50,000 vials of "Microcef 1 gm injection" received under ARE-1 No.38/07 dated 22.12.2007 by another three months and accordingly, applicants had exported the said consignment on 06.12.2008 vide Mate Receipt No. 82193247 dated 06.12.2008 as per the provisions of Para 2(b) of Notification No.19/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.09.2004 as amended, issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) not only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reign currency is obtained from the overseas customers. Once these requirements are fulfilled other subsidiary requirements are to be treated as procedural and not much importance is to be attributed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd v Deputy Commissioner & Others, 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC) has held that such a view would be justified if the condition was a substantive one and one fundamental to the policy underlying the exemption. 4.4 When there is no dispute about the fact that the impugned goods have been exported and rebate claim is filed within the stipulated time, the delay in export by more than 6 months is to be treated as a procedural infraction or technical mistake and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No.YDB/366/RGD/2010 dated 24.6.2010 allowed the appeal of the department. Simultaneously department issued SCN for recovery of said amount of Rs. 119480/-. The applicant filed revision application before Government of India against said order-in-appeal dated 24.6.2010. Meanwhile, the original authority vide order-in-original dated 4.3.11 confirmed the demand of erroneously sanctioned rebate, of Rs. 119480/-. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 30.12.11 has upheld the said order-in-orginal. Now, the applicant has filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. . The revision application No. 195/250/10, of ....