1998 (8) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Asstt. Commissioner, Divn. K-I rejected rebate claims totalling Rs. 1,63,485/- in respect of AR 4 Nos. 08/SP/96 and 09/SP/96 both dated 5-2-1996. The date of export was 10-3-1996 and the claim was filed on 30-9-1996 after a delay of about 20 days beyond the statutorily prescribed six month time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order for there is no evidence on record to suggest non-duty paid character of the exported goods and that the exports are not in dispute. He remanded the matter for re-examination by the original authority and for issue of another order. 3.The applicant Commissioner's grounds of appeal is based on the Clause (iv) of the N....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not affect the legal position. In this regard they cited a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 720 (S.C.) wherein a distinction has been drawn between referential legislation merely containing reference to provision of another statute and referential legislation incorporating within itself provision of another statute. Secondly, there is a factual error in the revision application filed by the applicant Commissioner. That is, the manufacturers are the respondents in the case and the exporters are Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. The latter having delayed the documents the claim was delayed. 6.Govt. has carefully gone through the written and oral submissions. It is observed that Central Excise Rules, 1944 were issued in ex....