Royal Line Resources Ltd Versus CCT, Visakhapatnam, GST
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 246 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 28-8-2018
Application No. E/COD/30355/2018 and Appeal No. E/30618/2018 – Final Order No. A/31067/2018
Central Excise
HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Shri N.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent
ORDER
[ Order Per : P. V. Subba Rao ]
1. The application is filed seeking condonation of a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. As the delay is marginal, I condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The appellant herein is a merchant exporter registered as dealer with the Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. They have filed form ARE1 seeking to export excisable goods viz., Mill scale under claim of rebate of duty from the premises of their supplier M/s Jai Balaji Mine
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
prescribed under notification 19-2004-CE (NT), Dt. 06.09.2004. The revenue felt that the rebate was wrongly sanctioned as the condition in Para 3(b)(i) of notification requires the refund claim to be filed with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, the Maritime Commissioner. In this case, the goods were not cleared from the factory but from the warehouse in Raipur. The refund claim was filed with the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, who neither has jurisdiction over the factory or the warehouse. He was also not designated as Maritime Commissioner by the Visakhapatnam Commissionerate. The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II has been designated as Maritime Commissioner for the purpose of processing and granting rebate claims and not the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III who sanctioned the rebate. An appe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on procedural grounds.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that in terms of Para 3(b)(i) of the notification, the officer having jurisdiction over the factory or manufacturer or warehouse can sanction the rebate. The term 'warehouse' under Rule 2(h) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 includes any place registered under Rule 9. The appellant is registered under Rule 9 as a dealer and therefore, the premises of the appellant should be considered as a warehouse and the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-III, Visakhapatnam has jurisdiction over the appellant and hence is entitled to sanction the rebate. Therefore, the rebate was correctly sanctioned and the Order-in-Appeal needs to be set aside. As an alternative argument, he submitted that in terms of second proviso to Sec.35A, if the Commissioner (Appeals) is of the opinion that any duty has been erroneously refunded, no order requiring the appellant to pay the erroneously refunded duty shall be passed unless, the a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =