9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. Shri Ayappan Kutty, Authorised Representative, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad against the order-in-appeal No. SRK/169/RGD/2008, dated 31-3-08 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-II. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that M/s. Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Ltd., Surat filed four rebate claims (RC No. 11440 dated 14-9-96, R.C. No. 9632, 0933 and 09631 all dated 28-8-06) totally amounting to Rs. 2,75,472/- before the Assistant Commissioner (Rebate) Central Excise, Raigad for rebate of Central excise duty paid on the goods cleared under ARE-1 No. 23, 22, 25 and 21 dated 29-12-05, 6-12-05, 4-2-06 and 5-12-05 respectively. 2.2 On scrutiny of the claims by the Asstt. Commissioner (Rebate), Raigad it was observed that original, duplicate and triplicate copy of ARE-1, duplicate copy of invoice were not enclosed with the said rebate claims. The sailing date on mate receipt does not match with date of bill of lading. Also letter dated 3-8-06 addressed to Maritime Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad mentioned that M/s. Garg Tex-O-Fab Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion of the respondent that the difference in the date shown on mate receipt and in ARE-1 Nos. 22 23 is a clerical mistake and date shown on mate receipt is the correct date has not been authenticated/supported by shipping company/customs officers. 3.2 The above order of Commissioner (Appeals) is inappropriate and not justifiable inasmuch as it appears that the condition, limitation and procedure prescribed in Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-01 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 as amended issued under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for grant of rebate of duty on export of goods have not been adhered to in the instant case. As per the provisions (3)(b)(1) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 as amended claim of the rebate of duty paid on all excisable goods shall be lodged along with original copy of the application to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise or Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or, warehouse or, as the case may be the Maritime Commissioner. The said notification has been issued under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e only evidence of the occurrence/event to which they relate to. This view is neither correct nor acceptable, as there is no provision in Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder for granting rebate on the basis of re-constructed/zerox copies of the statutory documents. Therefore, it is felt that the requirement of original statutory documents is not merely a formality but it is an essential requirement for establishing sufficient proof of export of goods and payment of duty in the instant case. 3.5 The issue in dispute in the present case is squarely covered in an identical set of circumstances in the following cases holding that the basis of xerox copies of documents have no evidence and liable to be misused as any number of copies can be made from one document. (i) J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani - 2007 (212) E.L.T. 458 (S.C.) (ii) M/s. Jandial Shoe Factory v. C.C.E., Kanpur - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 128 (Tri.) (iii) C.C.E., Surat-II v. Mercury Plast - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 595 (Tri.-Mum) (iv) C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Vision Electronics - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 653 (Tri.-Del.). (v) L T Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 795 (Tri.-Del.). 4. A Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 726 (GOI) - Rebate claims should not be rejected on technical grounds. 4.5 In respect of allegation that there is difference between the date shown on the Bill of lading and mate receipt. In respect of ARE-1 No. 21/05-06 dated 5-12-05 and 25/2005-06, dated 4-2-06 there is no difference. They are proper and correct. In respect of ARE 1 No. 2 SRP-23/05-06, dated 29-12-05 and SRP-22/05-06, dated 6-12-05 there is a slight difference. This is a clerical mistake. Actually the date shown on the mate receipt is correct and proper. The date shown on the mate receipt is certified by the Customs Officer on the ARE-1. The shipping bill number is mentioned on both the mate receipt as well as bill of lading and ARE-1 number is shown on the shipping Bill. All these tally together. Further, the Customs Authorities countersigns the shipping bills by showing the mate receipt number and date of sailing. 5. The case was listed for personal hearing on 18-8-10. Shri Ayappan Kutty, authorised representative appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the submissions of their letter dated 18-8-10. 6. Government has considered both oral and written submissions of the respondent and wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
