TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 with reference to duty paid on final finished export product. The rebate claim was sanctioned by the original authority after carrying out the verification. The department filed appeal against impugned Order-in-Original before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the applicant failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 as declared by them at Sl.No.3(b) of the impugned ARE-I and also on ground that the appeal filed by department before Commissioner (Appeals) was time barred. 3. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case in favour of department by setting aside impugned Order-in-Original. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Here, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have taken the broad outlook as he is the appellate authority & noted whether our mistake is an intentional one or procedural/clerical mistake. Thus, it is requested to set aside the present findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 4.3 It is the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that for filing appeal by the lower authority before the Commissioner (Appeals) is of 03 months. The contention of the Commissioner (Appeals) is totally baseless. Looking to the provisions of section 35 of the Central Excise Act 1944 where the period prescribed is 2 months on either side. It is not understood how a period of 03 months have been concluded by him. Moreover order of the lower authority is required to be rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed this revision application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 8. Government observes that the applicant has contested that appeal filed by department before Commissioner (Appeal) against impugned rebate sanctioning Order-in-Original was time barred having been filed after stipulated 2 months period. In this regard Government finds that the appellate authority has dealt with this contention of applicants and held that impugned Order-in-Original was reviewed within 3 (three months) time limit as prescribed in Section 35E (3) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and thereafter, appeal was filed before Commissioner (Appeals) within one month of the date of communication of such review order as stipulated in Section 35(E)(4) of the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been certified that exported goods have suffered duty at the time of removal, it can be logically implied that provisions of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.09.04 and Notification 43/01-CE (NT) dated '26.062001 cannot be applied in such cases. There is no independent evidences on record to show that the applicant have exported the goods without payment of duty under ARE-2 or under Bond. Under such circumstances, Government finds force in contention of applicant that they have by mistake ticked in ARE-I form declaration and they have not availed benefit of Notification 21/04-CE(NT) dated 06.092004 and Notification 43/01-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001. In this case, there is no dispute regarding export of duty paid goods. Simply ticking a w....