2005 (11) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed the facts of the case are that M/s. Sidhartha Soya Products Ltd., (the respondents), filed rebate claims for Rs. 1,86,804/-, Rs. 1,57,777/- Rs. 1,37,221/-, Rs. 1,20,570/-, Rs. 1,34,438/-, Rs. 75,938/- Rs. 1,02,750/- Rs. 1,92,128/- Rs. 1,30,122/- and Rs. 1,08,859/- all dt. 21-5-2002. The rebate of duty paid on the inputs viz., Hexane used in the manufacturer of final products exported to foreign countries has been claimed vide aforesaid rebate claims. 2.2 On perusal of the rebate claims it was observed that conditions set out in Notification No. 41/2001-C.E., dt. 26-6-2001, were not fulfilled by the respondents before the commencement of export. The respondent did not get registered themselves under Rule 9 of the Central Excise, (No. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 12 ibid provide that if the Commissioner is satisfied that the goods have in fact been exported, he may allow the whole or any part of the claim for rebate even if all or any of the conditions laid down in any notification issued under this rule have not been complied with. There are no such provisions under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules. (iii)   That the Commissioner (Appeals), has erred in holding the non­compliance with the conditions of the Notifications No. 41/2001-C.E., dt. 26-6-2001, as mere procedural lapses and condoning the same when he had no powers to do so. In view of the above the applicant Commissioner pleaded to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t file declaration regarding inputs/finished goods and the input/output ratio. (iii)   Did not get the ratio verified by the proper officer. (iv)   Did not export the goods on the application ARE-2. 7.2 Govt. notes that inspite of above procedural infractions Commissioner (Appeals), has given categorical findings in the impugned Order-in-Appeal that there is sufficient collateral evidences such as RRs, Shipping Bills, Bill of Lading, Bill of export etc., to prove that the respondents have procured Central Excise, duty paid input for manufacturing of the goods exported output of India. Govt. further notes that the original authority has rejected the respondents rebate claim on procedural infraction as....