2016 (7) TMI 869

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., is the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/S Cipla Ltd Mumbai, had filed a rebate claim for the duty paid on export of their goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which were exported by them The original authority held that rebate claim is admissible @ 4% on the goods cleared for home consumption in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006, as amended, whereas for exports they have paid duty @ 10% under the Notification No. 2/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 as amended. However, the original authority rejected the rebate in toto, on the ground that the applicant claimed simultaneous benefit of rebate and drawback which is not admissible. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of All Industry Rates of Drawback, a declaration of non-availment of Cenvat facility is necessary. Manufacturers and merchant-exporters with a supporting manufacturer are required to give a self-declaration in the prescribed form that such manufacturers are not registered with central excise and at they do not avail/ have not availed Cenvat facility. In the case of manufacturers and supporting manufacturers who are registered with Central excise, the fact of non-availment of Cenvat facility shall continue to be confirmed from the ARE-I filed by them. 4.3 In the instant case, the claimant has submitted details of duty payment particulars made from the manufacturer's Cenvat credit balance account along with the rebate claim. However,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0.09.2015. Shri Prashant Mhatre attended on behalf of the respondent who reiterated the grounds of the written submission. Nobody attended personal hearing on behalf of the department. 7. The department also filed an application dated 01.04.2015 for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing appeal beyond three months initial stipulated period on the following grounds: 7.1 That the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai-111, Mumbai Zone-Il decided the appeal in favour of the claimant vide Order-in-Appeal No, BC/286/M111/2011-12 dated 31.01.2012 which was received in the office of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Mumbai-Ill on 10.02.2012. Hence appeal should have been filed in this case by 09.05.2012. 7.2 That as per the provisions of Secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bove. 10. Government first proceeds to decide the issue of limitation in filing of Revision Applications after the stipulated three months period under Section 35EE (2) of Central Excise Act 1944, as the applicant department has filed these revision application 04 days after initial stipulated three months period and as such, it is an undisputed fact that the Revision Application has been filed beyond the stipulated period of three months. 10.1 The time limit of filing Revision Application has been specified in Section 35EE (2) ibid which reads as under: "Section 35EE. Revision by Central Government: (1) ...... (IA) ...... (2) An application under sub-Section (1) shall be made within three months fr....