2016 (7) TMI 655

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is merchant exporter, who had procured excisable goods from the manufacturer. The applicant exported the goods so procured from the manufacturer and filed following rebate claim as indicated below: S.N0. RC-No RC-Date ARE-1 No. ARE-1 Date Amount Claimed 1. 35597 29.03.2006 96 11.03.05 9276 2. 35595 29.03.2006 97 11.03.05 40938 3. 13336 31.07.2008 133 26.08.07  2004   The above mentioned claim could not be processed for the reason that the declaration at Sr. No.3 (a), (b) & (c) of AREs-1 were incomplete. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal and upheld impugned Ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epartment of Revenue as Reversionary Authority in the case Sanket Industries Ltd. - 2011 (268) ELT 125 (GOD 125 (GOI) ruled that benefit of export related scheme cannot be denied on ground of procedural infraction. 4.5 In view of above it is submitted that when export of excisable goods & duty payment thereon is supported with excise invoice not in dispute, merely non mentioning about non-availment of either Notification No.43/2001 CE(NT) dt. 26.06.2001 and Notification No.41/2001 CE (NT) dt. 26.06.2001, should be the reason for rejecting the otherwise valid rebate claim. The said notifications otherwise provide for getting duty free inputs or rebate of duty paid on inputs used in manufacture of goods exported. In this case, excise duty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e applicant on the ground that the declaration given at Sr.No.3(a)(b) & (c) is incomplete. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned Order-in-Original Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government notes that the applicant's rebate claims were rejected on ground no incomplete declaration at S.No.3(a)(b) & (c) of AREs-1. Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the factual aspects of all the AREs-1 and observed in relevant para as under: "I have gone through the case records and considered the averments made in the appeal. In the instant case, the appellants had filed three refund claims showing the ARE-I Nos. 96, 97 and 133 for removal of goods from the premises of M....