2015 (9) TMI 1326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore rejecting the rebate claims, came to be dismissed, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner company is a Co-operative society functioning under the control of Government of Tamil Nadu and engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar, which is an excisable commodity. It appeared that the petitioner cleared 5000 sugar in 100 kgs bags on payment of duty of Rs. 42,50,000/- and Rs. 17,00,000/- under cover of invoice and the same were stored in M/s.Central Warehousing Corporation, Udumulpet. However, according to the petitioner, since the export market desired only 50 kg sugar packing in poly propylene gags, the petitioner, after obtai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondents pointing out certain procedural infractions, ought not to have rejected the legitimate claim of the petitioner, which is a substantive benefit, in the interest of export promotion. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2006(205) ELT 1093 (GOI), wherein, it has been observed as under in para 8: "8. Govt., has also gone through the Hon'ble Tribunals judgment in case of Sythetics & Chemicals Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad -1998(93) ELT 92 (Tri), wherein it is held that a substantive benefit, if otherwise due could not be denied merely on account of minor procedural infractions." Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions and procedure of Notification No. 40/2001- CE(N.T) dated 26.06.2001 since the goods were not exported from the petitioner's factory or from the warehouse duly approved and it had not followed the procedure as set out in the notification. The petitioner has not produced satisfactory documentary evidence to show that the goods under export actually suffered duty. It is noted that the goods have been exported through the merchant exporter under bond in terms of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2001 and exported through merchant exporation viz., ISVC via Tuticorin Port under Bond in terms of provisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adducing satisfactory documentary evidence that the goods cleared from the factory on payment of duty and the goods exported through the merchant exporter were one and the same and thereby the duty paid character of the goods exported remained unsubstantiated. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any scope to interfere with the impugned order. The decisions on which the reliance was sought for by the petitioner cannot be helpful to the case of the petitioner since they were dealt with the circumstances under which the Supreme Court, considering the fact that the exporter therein had committed minor fractions in compliance of the conditions mentioned in the notification, observed that such minor procedural infractions can be ....