Page 211 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] IN RE : GIMPEX PVT. LTD. 745

“In fact, the power of remand by the Commissioner (A) has been tak-
en away by amending Section 35A with effect from 11-5-2001 under the Fi-
nance Bill, 2001. Under the Notes to clause 122 of the said Bill it is stated
that clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A so as to withdraw the powers of
the Commissioner (A) to remand matters back to the adjudicating authority
for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) continues to exer-
cise the powers of the adjudicating authority in the matters of assessment.”
Hence Commissioner (Appeals) has been authorized to act as an Adjudicating
Authority and is obliged to pass necessary orders if it is found that the original
Adjudicating Authority has passed an order which is not legal and proper. Ac-
cordingly Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the classification in re-
spect of sixteen Shipping bills on merits which were remanded back to adjudicat-
ing authority.
9. In view of the above discussions, the Commissioner (Appeals) order
is set aside on the ground that the impugned export goods are rightly classifiable
under RITC 6703. The order of adjudicating authority in respect of 114 Shipping
Bills filed prior to 12-12-2012 is upheld. As regards the balance 16 Shipping Bills
Commissioner (Appeals) order, Revision Application is allowed by way of re-
mand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for final disposal.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 745 (G.O.I.)
BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
[Department of Revenue - Revisionary Authority]
Ms. Mallika Arya, Additional Secretary
IN RE : GIMPEX PVT. LTD.
Order No. 102/2019-CX, dated 18-10-2019 in F.No. 198/217/2016-R.A. (CX)
Rebate of Excise duty - Procedural lapse - Exported Mill Scale falling
under Tariff Item 26190 09 09 of Central Excise Tariff mistakenly mentioned as
Tariff Item 7204 41 00 ibid on shipping bill - HELD : Description of goods
same on ARE-2 as well as Shipping Bill - Export of goods and payment of duty
on such export goods in terms of Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) read with
Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.) to be essential condition for granting re-
bate - CETH on shipping bill mentioned wrongly due to oversight - Bank Re-
alisation Certificate mentioning details relating to invoice no. and date, de-
scription of goods, Customs Authenticated Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading and
FOB value realized in Foreign Exchange, not challenged - Also, fact that Cus-
toms preventive officer certified export of impugned consignment and remit-
tance also received against said export, not contested - No reason to interfere
with order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Revision application rejected - Section
35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. [paras
5, 6]
Application rejected
CASES CITED
Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd. — 2014 (312) E.L.T. 854 (G.O.I.) — Relied on ......................................... [Para 5]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  211