TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 1067
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent registered with the central Excise department, are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely "Drugs and Medicines". The respondents filed the rebate claim under Rule 18 r/w Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 with the adjudicating authority by stating that the said duty was paid by them on inputs used in the manufacture of export goods and they are claiming rebate of the same under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 as amended. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondent for rejecting rebate claim on the ground that the rebate claim was preferred by them on the strength of ARE-1's instead of ARE-2 which is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d details are available in the ARE 1 under which the export has taken place. Further, since it is a case of rebate of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of export goods, it is mandatory for the notice to furnish the details of inputs used and duty paid on the said inputs on the export documents and make export under the cover of stipulated form ARE 2 and provide all the details as required under the said ARE-2. 4.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the adjudicating authority has found on scrutiny of the said ARE 1s that the "amount of rebate claimed" has been shown as NIL. Though the noticee has contended in their reply at Para 2(b) that the consumption of inputs towards utilization of export goods stands s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that the respondent exported the goods and filed rebate claim of duty paid on inputs under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.) r/w Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Original authority rejected rebate claims on the ground that the rebate claim was preferred by them on the strength of AREs-1 form instead of ARE-2 which is the prescribed document as per provision contained in the Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and the amount of rebate claim on the said AREs-1 was shown as NIL. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of respondent. 8. Government observes that exporter has followed all the conditions and procedure laid down under Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 except the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In a short span from 14-7-2009 to 23-7-2009/29-8-2009, it was not possible for the applicants to procure the inputs without payment of duty on the strength of Annexure-45 and manufacture the export goods to deliver at the appropriate time. Hence, the applicants had choose the option of exporting the goods on the strength of ARE-1s and claim the rebate of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of the export goods. While exporting the goods under the notification, the applicants have to follow the procedure as specified in the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) which is not disputed. Thus, the applicants have fulfilled all the conditions specified in the notification except that of exporting the goods on the strength of ARE-2. It was ....