CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Prakash Shah appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Mishra appearing for the Respondents. The concurrent orders are challenged on the ground that there was compliance with the notification and particularly the condition therein of export from the factory of manufacturer or warehouse. Though Condition No. 2(b) of the Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 6th September, 2004 requires that the excisable goods shall be exported within six months from the date on which it were cleared for export from the factory of manufacture or warehouse, Mr. Shah would submit that the condition is satisfied if the time is extended and it is capable of being extended further by the Commissioner of Central Excise. In the present case, the power to grant extension was in fact invoked. Merely because the extension could not be produced before the authority dealing with the refund/rebate claim does not mean that the claim is liable to be rejected only on such formal ground. The notification itself talks of a condition of this nature as capable of being substantially complied with. The authority dealing with the claim for refund/rebate could have itself invoked the further power and granted reasonable extension.

(2.) We are unable to agree because in the facts and circumstances of the present case the goods have been cleared for export from the factory on 31st January, 2005. They were not exported within stipulated time limit of six months. The application was filed with the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise much after six months, namely, 17th June, 2005 and extension was prayed for three months upto 31st October, 2005. The goods have been exported not relying upon any such extension but during the pendency of the application for extension. The precise date of export is 9th September, 2005. The Petitioners admitted their lapse and inability to produce the permission or grant of extension for further period of three months. In such circumstances and going by the dates alone the rebate claim has been rightly rejected by the Maritime Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Mumbai-III by his order which has been impugned in the writ petition. This order has been upheld throughout, namely, order-in-original dated 23rd December, 2009. The findings for upholding the same and in backdrop of the above admitted facts, cannot be said to be perverse and vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.