Page 212 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

746 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Zandu Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (315) E.L.T. 520 (Bom.) — Relied on .................. [Para 5]
[Order]. - A Revision Application No. 198/217/2016-R.A. (CX), dated 24-
10-2016 has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Commis-
sionerate, (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the Order-in-Appeal
No. 44/HAL/06, dated 29-12-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise
(Appeals-I), Kolkata. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of M/s.
Gimpex Private Limited (hereinafter called the respondent) against the Order-in-
Original No. 137/CE/Haldia-I/Rebate/Adjn./04, dated 30-11-2004 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia-I Division, Haldia Com-
missionerate, Kolkata who had rejected their claim of rebate amounting to Rs.
9,80,314.57.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a rebate claim in
respect of duty paid on inputs, i.e., Unscreened Mill Scale under Central Excise
Tariff Heading (CETH) 2619.00 used in the processing of Screened Mill Scale un-
der CETH 7204 41 00, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Cen-
tral Excise, Haldia-I Division, Haldia Commissionerate, Kolkata. The rejection
was on the grounds of violation of the provisions of Notification No. 41/2001-
C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 read with Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated
26-6-2001 inasmuch as the export goods did not get examined either by the juris-
dictional Range Officer at the time of stuffing nor did the respondent resort to
self-certification procedure. As a result identity of the export goods did not get
established. Being aggrieved the respondent appealed against this order before
the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata who set aside the im-
pugned Order-in-Original on the grounds that the Preventive Officer of Customs
had allowed export and Notification No. 40/2001 does not exclude Preventive Officer
from the purview of ‘Duly appointed officer’; identity of export goods is established
wherein inputs are co-relatable to finished goods. He has allowed the appeal with
consequential relief.
3. The revision application has been filed on the grounds that the ex-
ported goods were completely different from the goods for which rebate claim
was filed. The RITC code indicated in the relative Shipping Bills is 7204 41 00
wherein it should have been 2619 00 09 as was mentioned in the ARE-2, although
description of the impugned goods were the same, i.e., 19000 M.T. Mill Scale in
Bulk.
The applicant filed an appeal before the CESTAT, East Zonal Bench,
Kolkata under Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 requesting the Bench to set
aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 44/HAL/06, dated 29-12-2006 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Kolkata. Hon’ble CESTAT vide Or-
der No. FO/A/75545/2016, dated 13-7-2016 dismissed the appeal of the appli-
cant by observing that - “Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed and if so advised, Revenue
may seek redressal before the revisional authority in consultation with the higher authori-
ty.” The Deputy Registrar, CESTAT, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata forwarded the certified
copy of the impugned order, which was received by the applicant on 25-7-2016. Accord-
ingly the applicant filed the Revision Application on 24-10-2016.
The Revision Application also prayed for condonation of delay as there had been
an error of judgment in filing the appeal before the appropriate forum.
4. Personal hearing was fixed on 22-8-2019 & 4-9-2019. Nobody ap-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  212