TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-4/R-172/2011 dated 12.10.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTUI Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants filed rebate claims good cleared for export under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority rejected the rebate claims against certain ARE-Is on the ground that the goods were exported after six months from the date of clearance of goods from factory in violation to permission of Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Orders-in-Original, applicant filed appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed these Revision Applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eed to be dilated further. The said authority also was of the view that when the export itself was not dutiable under Excise Law, delayed export if not permitted, that will frustrate the object of export. Therefore, he rightly allowed the appeal of the Respondent without any disputed fact on record as to export. But while allowing the appeal he also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which was unwarranted when no mala fide intention to evade revenue was found by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue's appeal is therefore dismissed" In the present case, the goods have been exported after a period of six months of its clearance from the factory premises and in fact in most of the cases approximately the delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of duty can also be made relevant to the goods cleared under rebate of duty for exportation. In none of the cases as cited and relied by the applicant, the assesses had sought permission for extension of stipulated time limit to export their goods. Therefore, the cases as relied by the Appellants are also applicable in the present issue. 4.5 That it is the intention of the Government not to export taxes. In fact, in the case of Repro India Ltd. vs Union of India, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had an occasion to decide on the issue of exportation of taxes and emphasized on the consistency in policy of the Central Government not to export taxes but only to export goods. 5. Personal Hearing was held in this case on 16.12.2015 which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs from the date on which they were cleared for export from the factory of manufacturer or warehouse or within such extended period as the Commissioner of Central Excise may in any particular case allow" As per the said provision, the goods are to be exported within six months from the date on which they are cleared for export from factory. The Commissioner has discretionary power to give extension of this period in deserving and genuine cases. In the present case, such an extension was not sought. It is obvious that the applicants have neither exported the goods within prescribed time nor have they placed on record any extension of time limit permitted by competent authority. The said condition is a statutory and mandatory condition whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is held that "concessional relief of duty which is made dependent on the satisfaction of certain conditions cannot be granted without compliance of such conditions. No matter even if the conditions are only directory." Government also places-reliance on the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara vs Dhiren Chemical Industries 2002 (143)ELT 19 (SC) and Paper Products Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise 1999(112)ELT 765(SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that all the authorities working under the respective Central Excise/Customs Acts are to ensure strict applicability of all the relevant Notifications/CircuIars as issued for the purpose. Further, the Apex Court in its judgement in M/S Eagle Flask Industries Lim....