TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity rejected the rebate claim on the grounds that both marks & Nos. are to be different. The bale Nos. also seen to be different. 3.The appeal filed against the above order, was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), without relief to the applicants. 4.In the Revision Application the applicant made following main pleadings:- (i) That the appellants purchase the grey man made fabrics from Tirupur (Tamilnadu) and these grey fabrics are directly sent to M/s. Jairaj Processors, Jetpur, falling under the jurisdiction of Range Supdt. AR, Jetpur, Divn. II, of Rajkot Commissionerate, who process the said fabrics on job work basis. As soon the processed fabrics are ready for dispatch, the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said documents were prepared accordingly, which resulted in total net weight of 3960.00 Kg and total gross wt. of 4048 Kgs. in the S/B No. 20000448752 dated 17-10-2003, instead of the correct wt. of 3956 Kgs. and correct wt. of 4030 Kgs. (v) That the fact that the processed fabrics from M/s. Jayraj processors were directly sent to Mulund-CFS is amply substantiated by goods consignments Note No. 48600 dated 16-10-2003, and Bill No. 12447 dated 23-10-2003, of M/s. Radhakrishna Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. (vi) That they also produced the ledger account extract of M/s. Jayraj Processors for the year 2003 to 2004, wherein against Bill No. 13 dated 15-10-2003, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents. Similarly both the documents show clearance and export of 44 bales of printed filament yarn. On slight difference in weight shown in ARE-1, and the export document the applicant has explained that the processor due to ignorance had given round figures of net weight as 90 Kg instead of 89.900 Kgs. and gross wt. 92 Kgs. instead of 91.600 Kgs. and the said documents were prepared accordingly, which resulted in total net weight of 3960.00 Kg and total gross wt. of 4048 Kgs. in the S/B No. 20000448752 dated 17-10-2003, instead of the correct net wt. of 3956 Kgs.. and correct wt. of 4030 Kgs. The applicant's contention is convincing. 6.3The applicants have further contended that the payment of Central Excise on the impugned goods a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8) RLT 111 (GOI); Ikea Trading - 2003 (357) (sic) etc. 8.A procedural rule ordinarily should not be construed as mandatory, if the defect in that act done in pursuance of it can be cured by permitting appropriate rectification to be carried out at a subsequent stage unless by recording such permission to rectify the error, later on, another rule would be contravened. Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirements leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and specified consequence should not follow. [Shariff Ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 168 (Bombay) = AIR 19....