TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per the provisions prescribed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. These rebate claims were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs, North Daman Division, Daman vide various Orders-in-Original/Sanction order. Being aggrieved by these impugned Os-in-O, the department has filed four appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that in the impugned cases the goods have not been directly exported from the factory gate, that the goods were cleared for export under different ARE-1s and instead of being sent directly to the port of Export had been dispatched to the godown in Bhiwandi and were stuffed into the container under the supervision of the Central Excise Officers of Range-I Division-Kalyan-I, Thane-I Commissionerate, that the assessee has never disclosed in their claims that their godown is registered as warehouse. Therefore, the prime condition as laid down in para 2(a) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), for claiming Rebate has been violated by the assessee and thus the Rebate claims filed by the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments submitted by the applicant in relation to the export of the goods viz. Shipping Bills, Bill of Lading, Mate Receipt and corresponding Excise documents i.e. ARE-1, Invoice, copy of the RG23-II Entry, has arrived at his 'findings' of the respective orders, and after being convinced that the impugned goods were duly exported and that the rebate claim was in consonance with the amount of duty paid through Cenvat, the amount of rebate mentioned in the said Orders-in-Original were sanctioned. In fact, such judicious examination of rebate claim, as carried out by the Rebate sanctioning authority, finds support in the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, in case of Tablets India Ltd v. Jt. Secy., Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 191 (Mad.). 3.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his finding that as per Circular No. 294/10/97-CX, dated 30-1-1997 the correlation has not been done with respect to the goods cleared from factory and goods exported. Applicant would like to submit that on receipt of the ARE-1 application and particulars, the particular of the package/goods lying stored were verified with the particulars given in the application and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned. As the details of the Bhiwandi godown was already mentioned in the relevant ARE-1s, their reference again in the impugned Orders-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner, Daman North Division, was unwarranted. Moreover, such omission, if any, by no means can deny the fact that the goods were indeed exported. 3.6 The applicants have relied upon various case laws in favour of their contention. 4. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 5-3-2013 & 27-6-2013. Personal hearing held on 5-3-2013 was attended by Shri Subroto Saha, Head (Indirect Taxation) and Shri Rammilan Yadav, Second Head (Indirect Taxation) on behalf of the applicants who reiterated the grounds of revision application. Nobody attended hearing on behalf of department. The department vide their letter F. No. V/Review/ND/11-12, dated 25-6-2013 has reiterated findings of impugned Orders-in-Appeal. The applicants in their written reply submitted during the course of hearing on 5-3-2013, apart from reiterating ground of revision application, relied upon GOI Order Nos. 12-30/2012-CX, dated 12-1-2012 in case of M/s. Cipla Ltd. 5. Government has carefully gone through the relevant cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of manufacturer of excisable goods (d) Number and date of the duty paying document prescribed under Rule 52A under which the excisable goods are cleared from the factory and the quantity cleared. (e) The rate of duty and the amount of duty paid on excisable goods. 8.2 The AR4 form should have a progressive number commencing with Sl. No. 1 for each financial year in respect of each exporter with a distinguishing mark. Separate form should be made use of for export of packages/consignments cleared from the same factory/warehouse under different invoices or from the different factories/warehouses. On each such form it should be indicated prominently that the goods are for export under claim of rebate of duty. 8.3 On receipt of the above application and particulars, the particulars of the packages/goods lying stored should be verified with the particulars given in the application and the AR-4 form, in such manner and according to such procedure as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. 8.4 If the Central Excise Officer deputed for verification of the goods for export is satisfied about the identity of the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithin such extended period (not exceeding two years after the date of removal from the producing factory) as the Commissioner may in any particular case allow, and the claim for rebate, together with the proof of due exportation is filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise before the expiry of period specified in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 8.8 The rebate will be sanctioned, if admissible otherwise after following the usual procedure." 9. Government observes that in this case the applicants cleared the goods from factory to their godown at Bhiwandi, which was admittedly not a registered warehouse. However, the above said Circular dated 30-1-1997 provides for permits the export of goods from a place other than factory or registered warehouse subject to compliance of procedure laid down therein. Hence, rebate claims cannot be rejected merely on the grounds that the goods have not been exported directly from the factory or warehouse. The whole case is required to be seen in context of compliance of the said Circular dated 30-1-1997. The department has not brought out any violation of Circular dated 30-1-1997 by the applicant. More....