9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Division-II, Jalandhar. 2. Brief facts of these cases are that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of M.V. Parts and export of goods under the Chapter 87 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). The Applicants had exported goods through merchant exporter M/s. Blue Metal, Ludhiana under ARE- 1 No. JCL/R-46/06-07, dated 30-9-2006 and same were sailed on 29-10-06 and filed rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,60,458/- in the Divisional office on 1-8-07 paid on the goods cleared for export under Excise Invoice No. 170 dated 30-9-06, Export Invoice No. 03, dated 1-10-06, Shipping Bill No. 012209 dated 5-10-06 and Bill of Lading No. APLU0541574 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal, the applicant has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following identical grounds :- 4.1 There are no dispute about export of goods cleared by Applicant vide respective ARE-1's under reference. The merchant exporter supplied the shipping bill and connected documents. They blackened the value of goods exported in the interest of their business secret. However, the shipping bill exhibit the FOB value of goods exported alongwith others at serial number 6. 4.2 The said averments based on 2(e) of Notification No. 19/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncorrect to demand duty in respect of goods which have exported and proof of export thereto have also been accepted by the department. It is emphasis that rebate claim are sanctioned after acceptance of final proof of export as per case laws :- (i) Alpha Garments v. CCE, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 600 (T) (ii) CCE v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., 1985 (21) E.L.T. 904 (iii) Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (105) E.L.T. 398 (T) (iv) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (111) E.L.T. 257 (T) 4.5 The impugned orders have been passed on assumption, presumption, without any legal sanction and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... original and order-in-appeal. 7. Government notes that the dispute in these rebate claims filed under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for the exports made through merchant exporter is as under : (i) The attested copies of export documents were tampered with/particulars hidden (defaced) including the value of the goods. As such Value could not be verified as per condition 2(e) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. (ii) The crucial particulars like FOB value, Commercial Invoice Value, could not be verified/correlated in shipping bills and bill of lading which makes the impugned rebate claims as-without required, relevant and compulsory details/data required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 8. Sanction of claim for rebate by Central Excise 8.1 ------------------------------------------------------- 8.2 ------------------------------------------------------- 8.3 The following documents shall be required for filing claim of rebate : (i) A request on the letterhead of the exporter containing claim of rebate, ARE-1 numbers and dates, corresponding invoice numbers and dates amount of rebate on each ARE-1 and its calculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Crucial export documents, i.e. shipping bill, commercial Invoice and Bill of lading could not be verified as the same could not be co-related with originally declared/assessed value, thereby leading to not only a question as to whether the exactly same goods (cleared from manufacturer vide impugned ARE-1s) have been exported but also non-verification of the same viz-a-viz marketing prices. The tampering, bidding and any defacement of particulars in Commercial invoice, Shipping Bills & Bill of Lading is not permissible in statutory documents which are essential for claiming the monetary benefit. Such statutory documents having defacements, tampering or erasings cannot be treated as valid documents. 10. When above statutorily applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
