2016 (6) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this order. These appeals are directed against the order dated 31.12.2010 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed both the appeals of the appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Battery operated electric cars" falling under Chapter sub heading 8703 90 10 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The final product of the appellant is fully exempted by virtue of Notification No. 6/2006 dated 01.03.2006 as amended by Notification 6/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008. The appellants are availing the facility of cenvat credit on inputs, input services and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Appellant fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 66,184/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Four only) claimed on the invoices issued by M/s. Sea-Air Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Vani Associates has been disallowed by the impugned order for not fulfilling the conditions as specified in the Notification. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant has filed the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the invoices not containing the details as mentioned in Notification No. 41/2007 is only a procedural formality to be complied with whereas the substantial condition i.e. export of goods has taken place and the documents evidencing the said transactions were also submitted before the lower authorities and further the appellant furnished a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the receipt issued by the Courier Agency did not specify the Importer-Exporter Code no. of exporter, export invoice no., nature of courier, destination of the courier including the name and address of the recipient of the courier and the exporter did not produce evidence to link the use of the Courier Service to export goods and further in relation to CHA refund was denied on account of non-fulfillment of the conditions specified in Notification 41/2007. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the appellant failed to fulfill the conditions of the Notification and therefore both the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for both th....