TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (11) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs (the applicant), Bangalore, have claimed rebate of Rs. 4,23,860/- and Rs. 4,31,925/- in respect of 82330.00 Kg. & 1,32,574/- of stationery materials exported under the cover of ARE-2 No. 49 dt. 14-2-2003, 51 dt. 21-2-2003, 42, 25/23-12-2002, 43/30-12-02, 44/17-1-03, 45/22-1-03, 46/23-1-03, 47/24-1-03 and 48/11-2-03. 2.2 After scrutiny of the rebate claims the adjudicating authority has disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,27,025.00/- and Rs. 1,43,492/- in the rebate claim on the following grounds :- (i)Inputs are not obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated under Notfn. No. 41/2001-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 26-6-2001, as per which the manufacturer or the producer shall obtain the materials to be used in the manufacturer or the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired in Para (2) of the said Notification and formally permit the respondents to manufacture and export the finished goods. In the instant case the respondents have not filed the declaration or the input-output ratio. The input-out ratio has not been verified by the Asst. Commissioner and no permission has been granted by him to the respondents to manufacturer and export the finished goods. As such the vital conditions laid down in the Notification No. 41/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), dt. 26-6-2001, have not been complied with the respondents and hence they are not eligible for the rebate. Thus the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajajinagar Division, has erred in sanctioning the said claim to the respondents." In view of above t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obtained under erstwhile Notification No. 42/94 --- rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 shall be valid even under the present Rules. Further Central Excise Rules, 2002 replaced the above rules and presently Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 governs the rebate for inputs used in the manufacturer of final products which are exported. In this connection your attention is invited to Rule 33 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which deals with the transitional provision. The said rules reads as follows :- "Any Notification, circular, instruction, standing order, trade notice or other order issued under the Central Excise (No. 2), Rules, 2001 by the Board, the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner of Central Excise, and in force as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C.E., 1999 (114) E.L.T. 1032 (Tri.) wherein, it was held that exemption under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. shall be available even if assessee followed the procedural set out under Rule 173N of Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of following the provision of said notification as the lapse is only a procedural lapse. (vi) That the procedural lapse shall not be a condition for denial of any benefit grant under the Act. It is submitted that the appellant has been exporting the goods and all the procedure given under the erstwhile notification has been followed. In view of the above the applicant requested to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 5.The case was heard on 27-4-2005, and Sh. R.K. Sharma, ld., Counsel, appeared for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it has been alleged by the respondents that the appellants has been availing the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 41/2001-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 26-6-2001, without following the conditions and procedures stipulated therein such as submission of a declaration containing the input-output ratio and grant of permission on the basis of such submissions. In this connection it is submitted that under the erstwhile Notification No. 42/94-C.E.(N.T.), dt. 22-9-1994, the appellant had submitted the details of input-output ratio vide Letter Ref No. MPP/CE/463/97-98, dt 12-11-1997, wherein they have claimed 3% as wastage. On the basis of the above submissions a permission was granted by Asst. Commissioner of vide Letter Ref. No. V/ECR/l8/66/97(P),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cope of beneficial provision is to be avoided so that it may not take away with one hand what the policy gives with the other. In Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1534 (SC), the Apex Court also observed that the administrative authorities should instead of relying on technicalities, act in a manner consistent with the broader concept of justice. Similar observations was made by the Apex Court in the Formika India v. Collector of Central Excise, 1995 (77) E.LT. 511 (SC), in observing that once a view is taken that the party would have been entitled to the benefit of the Notification had they met with the requirement of the concerned rule, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefi....