TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are Merchant Exporters of medicaments being manufactured inter alia by M/s. Neel-Nayan Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The medicaments manufactured by the said M/s. Neel were exported by the respondents to Beninsula, Somaliya, Nigeria under six ARE-1's. In each of the ARE-1's, the respondents mentioned the address of Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai-III as the authority from whom they would claim rebate claim. All the aforesaid consignments except consignment covered under ARE-1 Number 16 dated 21-3-2009 (RC No. 25265/2009-2010 dated 13-1-2010) were exported through JNPT Port while export of medicaments of the excepted one was exported from New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. By deficiency Memo-cum Show Cause Notice-Call for personal hearing dated 22-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 As per Board's Circular No. 770/3/2004-CX., dated 9-1-2004 the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commissioner is in relation to the port, airport, land customs station or post office under the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Central Excise from which the export has taken place. The said Circular states "it is evident that jurisdiction of the Maritime Commissioner is directly related and restricted to the port of the exportation of the export goods under consideration." 4.3 Thus from the above fact, it is clear that the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner (Rebate), Central Excise, Raigad is restricted only to the export taking place from the port in the jurisdiction of Raigad Commissionerate. Therefore the Assistant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the said notification and non-fulfilment could not be termed as mere technical lapse. Further in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vishakapatnam v. Anandlaxmi Mallebles Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.-Bang.) it was held that the notification has to be strictly interpreted and that violations of the specific condition of the notification is not a minor procedural lapse. 5. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 to file their counter reply. The respondent vide their written submission dated 27-2-2013 received on 25-3-2013 has requested to decide the case on merits. 6. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 5-3-2013. Nobody attended hearing. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sanctioning authority. Government notes that goods covered vide 5 AREs-1 were exported from JNCH, Nhava Sheva and ACCE Raigarh who is the Maritime Commissioner for export through Seaport Nhava Sheva, is the rebate sanctioning authority in this case. There is a force in the pleading of the respondent that this is a clerical mistake in wrong mentioning of rebate sanctioning authority in 5 AREs-1 and same may be condoned. Government in view of the case laws cited by applicant finds that this procedural lapse is condonable as mentioning of wrong rebate sanctioning authority cannot be a valid ground for denying the substantial benefit of rebate of duty paid on exported goods. In these cases, the export of duty paid goods is not in dispute.....