TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-GH, Mumbai-I 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had cleared goods for export under A.RaE-2 No. 17/2010-11 dated 23.02.2011 and invoice Nos. 205 and 206, both dated 23.02.2011 under UT-I/7-02/GH/2010-11 dated 01.04.2010. They have filed rebate claim amounting to Rs. 61,181/- with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, under Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) dated 06.0982004, issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the inputs used in the manufacture of finish products and exported vide above mentioned A.R.E.2 and invoice. The respondent vide his above mentioned order, sanctioned amount of Rs. 19,256/- as a rebate claim and remaining amount of Rs. 41,316/- and Rs. 608/- have been rejected. While rejecting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon the order of Joint Secretary (RIA.) as it is de novo and not final. It is great surprise that for not deciding the case Commissioner (A) has taken the shelter of Joint Secretary order on technical ground but Commissioner (A) has even not bothered to apply the directions of Joint Secretary (RA) which is in the similar case of appellant only and squarely applicable in present case as well. The order of Joint Secretary (RA) is lying pending for finalisation in the office of the Commissioner (A) himself only which is also binding on Commissioner (A). 4.3 Commissioner (A) contention that delay was on the part of appellant is not true and not correct therefore not acceptable on the ground that deficiency memo was not issued at one go, a co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter considerable delayed by the department it was hurried up with the intention of depriving the rights of the Appellant. 5.Personal Hearing in this case held on 23.0612015 and 07.07.2015. Nobody attended personal hearing. Department vide letter dated 03.07.2015 mainly reiterated contents of impugned orders. The applicant vide letter dated 19.06.2015 mainly reiterated grounds of R.A. 6.Government has gone through the relevant case records/available in case files, oral & written submission and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal 7.Government observes that applicant exported the goods and filed rebate claim total amounting to Rs. 61,181/- of duty paid on inputs under notification no. 21/2004-C.E.(N.T.) dated 06.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perusal of sample copies of documents submitted by the applicant, Government observes that invoices raised by M/S. Janta Glass Ltd, indicates name of M/S. Jai Glass works as dealer and M/S. Great India Industries and Pharmaceutical Ltd. (the applicant) as consignee. Further the invoice raised by M/S. Jai Glass works in the name of applicant also tallies with respect to quantity, no of packages, Truck No. L.R. No., Description etc. Under such circumstances, mere reliance on stock Register in isolation cannot be a basis of reaching to a conclusion that applicant failed to prove that duty paid inputs have been used in manufacture of final product. As such, the issue needs to be remined in light of all relevant documents to ascertain use of dut....