TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... menthol (CETH 29061100 and exported vide Notification No. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 as amended vide Notification No. 4/2008 dated 01.03.2008) for export and after exportation of goods filed rebate claims of duty paid on inputs under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as per provisions of Notification No, 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Part V of Chapter 8 of CBEC Supplementary Instructions Manual. 2.2. The respondent had earlier filed declaration on 01.062009 and sought permission to manufacture export goods in terms of said Notification, which was subsequently granted by the Division Office, Derabassi vide C.No. V(Misc)Rebate/ Notn.21/2004/DB/2/2009/2747 dated 18.08.2009 fixing therein input-output norms as 1.250 kg DMO (Deterpenated Mentha Oil) : 1000 kg Menthol on the basis of their declaration confirming thereunder mother liquor would not be processed/recycled for obtaining the menthol and would be cleared as de-mentholized oil terpenelss. 2.3. The respondent filed rebate claims therefore of duty paid on excisable materials used in the manufacture of export goods, before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Derabassi who sanctioned the rebat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the party had themselves voluntarily agreed to vide their letter dated 17.0212011 that rebate be sanctioned as per norms kg DMO to kg menthol, and deposited amount of Rs. 22,68,916/- along with interest of Rs. 1,15,547/- and accordingly the norms were re-fixed as 1.000kg of DMO to 1 kg menthol, and 1.000 kg of DMO to 1 kg of menthol crystals vide C No. V(Misc)Rebate/Notifi 21/04/DB/2/2009/1121 dated 04.03.2011. 4.2. That Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has not considered the fact and circumstances which led to re-fixation of input output norms subsequently as 1:1 and grossly erred in simply rejecting the appeals of the Department/Revenue. That Shri Ram Ashish Yadav, Deputy Manager (Production) and Shri Vinod Rana, Deputy Manager Commercial in their statement dated 09202.2011 has admitted that they do not have any stock of mother liquor or any type of menthol waste lying in their factory as all the quantity of mother liquor generated during the course of manufacture of menthol since 2008 has been further reprocessed/recycled within their factory to obtain menthol. 4.3. That the party suppressed the fact of recycling/reprocessing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts rebate of duty pain on inputs ibid on the basis of input output norms as 1.250:1 fixed and permitted by the Department under C No. V (Misc)Rebate/Notfn.21/04/DB/2/2009/ dated 19.08.2009. 5.4. That the Revenue failed to understand the true nature and reason for the filing the same. That it was not the case that the party agreed to the ratio 1 kg menthol: 1 kg DMO. That the party in their letter dated 17.02.2011 has contended that as the revenue has already issued a Show Cause Notice on a different issue with regard to eligibility of rebate claim in respect of ARE-2 Nos 3/2009-10 dated 27.1012009, 005/2009-10 dated 10.11.2009, 007/2009-10 dated 05.122009 and 10/2009-10 dated 19.01.2010 and the party to facilitate the speedy disposal of pending rebate claims due to delay in refund was also causing prejudice to their commercial interest, hence it was requested that the rebate claims may be immediately allowed as per input output ratio of 1 kg DMO : 1 kg menthol on a condition that the Show Cause Notice may be dropped and the rebate claims that are pending for the sanction may be allowed immediately as they were in need of refund money. 5.5. The party has relied on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he statements of the officials in charge of production and-commercial matters of the respondent and ignoring that statement recorded under Section 14 before a Central Excise Officer has evidentiary value and is binding. Moreover, the statements have not been retracted at any stage. In this regard Government places reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Sukhwani Vs Union of India 1996(83) ELT 285(SC) that statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a material piece of evidence collected by the Customs Officials and can be used as substantive evidence. The provision of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is para materia with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 10.Government further finds that in the case Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. Vs D. Bhoormull-1983(13) ELT 1546 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Department was not required to prove its case with mathematical precision. The whole circumstances of the case appearing in the case records as well as other documents are to be evaluated and necessary inferences are to be drawn from these facts as otherwise it would be impossible to prove everyt....