TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s. Telco, Pune, the applicant originally cleared the goods for export under bond from the factory under eight AR4/AREs. However, these goods could not be exported due to cancellation of their export order and therefore, Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 68307/-was paid vide TR6 challan dated 22-6-2000 and amounting Rs. 466239/- was paid through entry in RG 23 Pt. II. However, these goods were subsequently exported in 2003 under two ARE 1s on receipt of fresh export order, as per details tabulated below : Sl. No. Original AR4 Nos. & dated under which goods were first cleared for export under bond Dated of payment of duty after cancellation of export order of first export ARE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e department. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds : 4.1 The applicants submit that it is not in dispute in the instant case that - (i) the goods were exported; (ii) the applicable excise duty was paid on the goods; and (iii) the claim for rebate was filed within the stipulated time limit as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Having regard to this undisputed factual position, the Applicants submit that the action of Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the rebate claims is not justified. Extension to export the vehicles was obtained and duty was paid be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 10-3-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1740 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 2-2-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1743 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 10-3-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1746 Dt. 24-5-2000 23-5-2001 23-11-2001 23-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 2-2-2003 2-9-2003 LPT709 E38 Truck Chassis MV/B 1829 Dt. 27-5-2000 26-5-2001 26-11-2001 26-5-2002 20-2-2002 27-1-2003 10-3-2003 2-9-2003 4.3 The Applicants reiterate that since the export was not materializing they applied for and obtained extension for each of the above cases and before the extension could la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. Therefore, the applicants submit that the conditions of said Notification are fully met with and Board's instruction is also stands followed. 4.6 When the export order came for these goods, the applicants prepared fresh ARE-1s by intimating the Range Superintendent and after physical inspection of goods by him. The bus/truck chassis being identifiable with reference to their chassis no. and engine no. and after being satisfied with the documentation, the Range Superintendent signed the fresh ARE-1s. The ARE-1s were prepared in January/February 2003 and the vehicles were physically exported in March 2003. Therefore, the applicants respectfully submit that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were not exported wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2000. Due to cancellation of order of export, they did not export the goods and paid applicable duty on such goods. On receipt of fresh export orders, they exported the goods on and filed rebate claim of duty paid in year 2002 under Rule 18 r/w the then existing Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The original authority initially sanctioned the rebate claim. The department reviewed the impugned Order-in-Original and filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the applicant exported the goods after more than 2 years from the date on which the goods were cleared from factory and also that the applicant failed to obtain the extension from Jurisdictional Commissioner. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of de....