9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 732 - CGOVT - Central ExciseRevision Application - whether Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowing the rebate claim to the party by observing that the fundamental requirement of duty payment, manufacture and export had been met and remaining allegations were procedural requirements that can be condoned Held that - Government further observes that in respect of Shipping Bill pertaining to these two ARE-1s there is no mention of ARE-1s on their Shipping Bills. The mentioning of Shipping Bill No. on the Part B of ARE-1 and No. of the ARE-1 on the appropriate place on shipping bill facilitates the co-relation of goods cleared under a particular ARE-1 with the goods exported under a particular shipping bill. In the absence of Sl. No. of ARE-1 on the corresponding shipping bill, the fact of export of goods cannot be established, rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant for failure to comply with the conditions of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 and to prove that duty paid goods cleared from factory were exported - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
Denial of rebate claim based on discrepancies in export documents. Analysis: The case involved a Revision Application filed against the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana. The facts of the case revolved around M/s. Stanley Products engaged in manufacturing and export, claiming rebate through a Merchant Exporter. The dispute arose when discrepancies were found in the export documents submitted with the rebate claim. The issues highlighted were: 1. Export beyond the stipulated period of six months from the date of clearance for export. 2. Crucial particulars like value of goods, buyer's details deliberately erased from shipping bills. 3. Lack of co-relation between ARE-1s and shipping bills. 4. Failure to comply with statutory requirements for filing rebate claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the rebate claim, citing procedural requirements that could be condoned. However, the Revision Application contended that the fundamental requirement of actual export was not met. The Government observed that the hidden and blackened particulars in the export documents made it impossible to verify the details of the goods. The self-attested copies of Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading were found to lack essential particulars, rendering them improper documents as per statutory requirements. Moreover, the export was conducted after six months from the clearance date, without seeking an extension. The absence of necessary details in the Shipping Bills and the lack of co-relation with ARE-1s further weakened the claim's admissibility. The Government concluded that the rebate claim was inadmissible due to non-compliance with statutory conditions and failure to prove the export of duty-paid goods from the factory. In light of the above findings, the Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original, ruling in favor of denying the rebate claim. The Revision Application was deemed successful based on the detailed analysis and non-compliance with statutory requirements. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the final decision reached by the Government in the matter concerning the denial of the rebate claim based on discrepancies in the export documents.
|
