2018 (9) TMI 246 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – Rebate of Excise duty – export of goods – Jurisdiction – case of Revenue is that 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 – Held that:- The issue involved relates to rebate of excise duty on goods exported out of India. CESTAT has no jurisdiction to decide appeals on orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on such matters as per the first proviso to Section 35B – appeal dismissed being not maintainable. – Application No. E/COD/30355/2018 and Appeal No.E/30618/2018 – Final Order No. A/31067/2018 – Dated:- 28-8-2018 – 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 cond
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ral Excise, Division- III, Visakhapatnam vide Order-in-Original No.61/2014-15-R.(AC), Dt. 24.12.2014. In this Order-in-Original, the lower authority has remarked that since, the goods were removed from Raipur, the documents have been sent to the jurisdictional authorities to confirm that the duty has been paid and thereafter he sanctioned the rebate. 3. Rebate of Central Excise duty is sanctioned under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to the procedure 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 w
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
also verified the Bank Realisation Certificate confirming the foreign exchange has been received for the exports. 4) As per CBEC Circular No. 18/92-CX-6, Dt. 18.12.1992, the Central Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the duty paid stocks outside the factory premises from where the goods have been exported have to sanction the rebate. Even if it is admitted that there is a procedural lapse, a substantive benefit of rebate cannot be denied to them 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, Visakhapatn
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =