TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 803
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the applicant are engaged in the manufacture of drugs and medicines. They filed rebate claim of duty for Rs. 75,238/- under Notification No. 21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of their export goods. The rebate sanctioning authority vide Order In-Original No. R-221/2011 dated 24.11.2011 rejected the rebate claim of Rs. 75238/- on the grounds that the applicant has manufactured and exported the finished goods before filing the requisite declaration under the said notification and failed to fulfil the condition of the Notification No. 21/2004 -CE(NT) dated 06.09.20041 Thus the applicants were alleged to have contravened the provisions of Notification no. 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclaimer certificate in respect of ARE2 No. 20/2010-11 dated 18.102010 for Rs. 73,450/- was not the subject matter of discussion and findings of the Order-In-Original No. R-221/2011 against which the appeal had been filed by the applicant. 5. Personal hearing in the captioned case was held on 04.11.2015 which was attended by Shri S.B. Lal, Consultant who appeared on behalf of the company and submitted a written submission which is as under: 5.1. That the applicant seeks relief from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order-In-Appeal which has been passed relying upon incorrect documents or figures and allegations which did not even form part of the Order-In-Original of the adjudicating authority. 5.2. That the main allegation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which in turn is accepted by Central Excise authorities to draw reasonable satisfaction. That such declaration was available and rebate claim was filed accordingly. 5.8. That the Government policy for export promotion and the international business practice is not to export taxes and rebate benefits are allowed to exporters to neutralize tax/duty incidence in respect of the export goods. That mere procedural lapse of rectifiable nature cannot land should not take away the benefits announced in terms of larger objectives of export promotion. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records Government observes that in the case under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Excise, availed benefit of rebate under Rule 18 for inputs used in manufacture of goods for the purpose of export but failed to fulfill the conditions and did not follow the prescribed procedure in respect of some of the ARE 2. 10. In reference to the above, Government first proceeds to examine the conditions stated to be not fulfilled as laid down under Notification No. 21/2004CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 10.1. Government observes that export of goods under claim for rebate on inputs used in manufacture of export goods is governed by Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 read with Chapter 8 of CBEC's Central Excise Manual and finds that first condition laid down is that of filing of de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the occurrence of any unintentional procedural lapse and rather termed the demand of such declaration as illegal and bad in law. 10.2. Another condition laid down under the above referred Notification is that of verification of Input-Output Ratio. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise shall verify the correctness of the ratio of input and output mentioned in the declaration filed before commencement of export of such goods, if necessary, by calling for samples of finished goods or by inspecting such goods in the factory of manufacture or process. If after such verification, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent leads to any specific/odd consequences, then it would be difficult to hold that requirement as non-mandatory. 11.2. 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 and it should be read along with the Act as held by in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd - 1988(38) ELT 741 (S.C.) and Orient Weaving Mills P....