2011 (7) TMI 1096

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the manufacture of Leaf Springs. They claimed rebate in respect of goods exported, vide various AREs-1 on perusal of the documents submitted by the applicants, it was observed by the original authority that goods were removed for export against letter of undertaking i.e. UT-1, without payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001. It was observed that the goods removed for export were not under Rule 18 of the Rules ibid read with Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 but under Rule 19 of the Rule ibid, and it was evident that amount of rebate was filled as NIL by the applicants. On the basis of above, it was alleged by the origi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants had also offered at various stages to show the duty paying documents and subsequent payments made to the input suppliers. Regarding declaration for input consumption it is submitted that we had already submitted the same at later stage. The plea that prior submission of such declaration facilitates the department to verify the correctness can be satisfied even at the later stage. This seems to be factual aspects solely based upon the verification of the Excise Invoices on which cenvated inputs used in the manufacture of exported goods. The applicants are the registered with Central Excise and are regularly filing the periodical returns to the department. The finished product i.e. leaf spring as declared in the registration certificate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-2011, was attended by Shri Rajiv Sinha, Consultant and Shri Sunil Bahl, Partner on behalf of the applicant, who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records, and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. The applicant exported their goods covered vide AREs-1 and filed the rebate claim of duty paid on inputs/goods used in manufacturing of final product in terms of Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. The original authority, had rejected rebate claim on the ground that goods were removed for export under UT-1 without payment of Central Excise Duty, 2002, under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.....