2016 (7) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.19/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The rebate was allowed to the applicant. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), on the ground that as the applicant has availed drawback, allowing rebate will amount to double benefit, which is not allowed. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed department's appeal. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the applicant has filed this Revision Application under Section 35 EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds: 4.1 Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the rebate claim without appreciating the fact that applicants are claiming rebate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... it shall mean that the same relates to only customs component and the rebate is available irrespective of whether the exporter has availed of Cenvat or not. Commissioner simply brushed aside this submission stating that the judgement of Benny Impex Pvt Ltd-2003(154) ELT 300(GOI) relied upon by the applicants prior to issue of Notification No.84/2010 Cus(NT) dated 17.09.2010. 4.3 Commissioner failed to appreciate the clarification issued by CBEC vide its Circular No. 35/2010-Cus dated 17.09.2010 that Customs components of duty drawback is eligible simultaneously while claiming the rebate on final product. 4.4 Applicant submits that the issue of simultaneous claim of drawback of customs Component and rebate of Central Excise duty was a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 8. On perusal of records, Government observes that the original authority sanctioned the rebate claims. The department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that as the applicant has availed drawback, allowing rebate would amount to double benefit. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the department's appeal. Now, the applicant has filed this Revision Application on grounds mentioned in para (4) above. 9. At the outset, Government observes that the Revision Application has been filed beyond stipulated period of three months. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was received by the applicant on 15.03.2012 and the Revi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onths from date of receipt of Order-in-Appeal and is deemed to have been submitted only upon receipt of Revision Application in the office of Revision Application Unit. It is an undisputed fact on record that the Revision Application has been received beyond three months period. This period may be extended by further three months provided sufficient cause has been shown which prevented the applicant from filing Revision Applications in time. 11. In view of the above stated position the applicant has erred in its contention that as they had posted the application on the last day of the stipulated 3 months period, no condonation of delay is required. The applicant has also failed to give any documentary evidences to justify that there were....