TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority had rejected the rebate claim on the ground that the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 19/2004 CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not fulfilled. The following deficiencies were recorded in the findings of the adjudicating authority: (i) The authority with whom the rebate claim will be filed is shown in the ARE-Is as Maritime Commissioner, Kolkata, instead of Maritime Commissioner, Raigad. (ii) The copy of Bill of lading given is not legible and self attested. (iii)The shipping Bill copy is not proper. The prefix of the container number is not appearing. (iv)The tariff classification of the product given on the invoices is not tallying with that given in the Shippi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioning authority cannot examine correctness of assessment. Full rebate is eligible if Central Excise Duty is paid on CIF value also. In CCE vs. Maini precision products (2010) 252 ELT 409 (CESTAT, SMB), it has been held that rebate is payable even if duty is paid on CIF value. Rebate sanctioning authority is not to examine correctness of assessment. Relying on the above judgment, and also relying on CBEC circular No. 510/06/2000 CX date 03.02.2000, the applicant is eligible for rebate as per assessable value shown in the Central Excise invoice and A.R.E.I.s 4.5 Department has not been able to establish that the items covered by the relevant ARE1s/ Shipping Bills/Bills of lading, have not been exported by the applicant. 4.6 The a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-in-Original. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government observes that the original authority held the rebate claim is admissible on following grounds: (i) The authority with whom the rebate claim will be filed is shown in the ARE-Is as Maritime Commissioner, Kolkata, instead of Maritime Commissioner, Raigad. (ii) The copy of Bill of lading given is not legible and self attested. (iii) The shipping Bill copy is not proper. The prefix of the container number is not appearing. (iv) The tariff classification of the product given on the invoices is not tallying with that given in the Shipping Bill. (v) The assessable value is more than FOB value. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: 8.2.1 In the case of Sharif-ud-Din, Abdul Gani (AIR 1980 SC 3403) it has been observed that distinction between required forms and other declarations of compulsory nature and on simple technical nature is to be judiciously done. 8.2.2 It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfillment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein as held by the Apex Court in the case of Government of India Vs. Indian Tobacco Association 2005 (187) ELT 162 (S.C.); Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008(231) ELT 3 (S.C.). Also it is settled that a Notification has to be treated as a part of the statute an....