TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urgaon and Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-I, respectively. 2. The brief facts leading to the present proceeding are that the applicant, as Merchant Exporter, had filed rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-92004, for bulk drugs exported out of India for Excise duty paid by the Principal Manufacturer, M/S. Vitalife Laboratories, Gurgaon. The rebate claims were rejected by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise on the ground that the goods were not directly exported from the factory of the manufacturer as stipulated in the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) which mandates that rebate claim is admissible only when e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly either from the factory or from the warehouse. It is further averred that warehouse is defined as any place or premises registered under Rule 9 as per Rule 2(h) and accordingly their place of export, being a registered place under Rule 9 as a dealer, is also a warehouse as envisaged in the above condition of Notification No. 19/2004. The Government finds that this argument has substantial force and their rebate claims cannot be rejected on this ground alone. However, apart from the condition that the goods should be cleared directly from a factory or warehouse for the export thereof, the first and the foremost condition specified at Para 2(a) of Notification No. 19/2004 is that the excisable goods must be exported after payment of duty a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises of the applicant in Gurugram. They have not issued ARE-I under the supervision of the jurisdictional Central Excise officers and even self-sealing procedure is not followed by the principal manufacturer or even by the applicant while exporting the goods. It is all the more peculiar in this case since the applicant is a manufacturer-exporter also and thus was fully aware about the procedure that the goods can be exported either under department's supervision or under their own self-sealing procedure. Above all, the goods are not physically present at this stage and no one is in a position to verify the fact that only those goods which were cleared from the factory of the principal manufacturer on payment of duty have only been ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso not found relevant as these decisions have only emphasized that the orders should be speaking and well-reasoned. But no such defect is noticed by the Government Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. Instead, from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) it is quite evident that he has discussed the issues in detail and orders have been passed after recording sufficient reasons for rejection of the appellant's appeals. As regards the applicant's argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with their argument regarding non-application of time limitation in regard to rebate claims, the Government finds that the applicant has not produced any evidence to establish that they had raised this argument before Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19/2004, the Government finds no legal force in this argument as for refunds and rebate of duty [under] Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is directly dealing statutory provision and it is clearly mandated therein that the application for refund of duty is to be filed with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before expiry of one year from the relevant date. Further in explanation in this Section, it is clarified that refund includes rebate of duty of Excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India. In addition to time limitation, other substantive and permanent provisions like the authority who has to deal with the refund or rebate ....