9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad against the order-in-appeal No. RKR(274)/218/07 dated 19-12-07 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Dagger Forst Tools Pvt. Ltd. Aurangabad are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. broches, cutting tools and measuring instruments falling under Chapter heading No. 8207 60 90/8290 32 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.2 The assessee had exported their goods vide ARE-1 No. 1-5-06, 2/05-06, 3/05-06, 4/05-06 /05-06 all dated 12-7-05 and debited the duty of Rs.16,842/, 16,281/-, 16,562/-, 8,421/- 6,283/- (Total Rs. 64,389/-) in PLA Account vide entries No. 2, 3, 4, 5 6 all dated 12-7-05 respectively. The assessee filed these five rebate claims on 14-2-06 and during the scrutiny of the ARE-1s it was observed that all the ARE-1s were not complete in all respect as far as the endorsement of Customs department was concerned, therefore, all the rebate claims were returned to the party on 10-5-06 for necessary compliance accordingly. The assessee resubmitted all the rebate claims on 31-7-06 i.e. after completion of one year period fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It may not be possible to scrutinize the claim without the accompanying documents and decide about its admissibility. If the claim is filed without requisite documents, it may lead to delay in sanction of the refund. Moreover, the claimant of refund is entitled for interest in case refund is not given within three months of the filing of claim. Consequently, submission of refund claim without supporting documents will not be allowed. Even if, the claim is filed by post or similar mode, the claim should be rejected or returned with Query Memo (depending upon its nature/importance of documents not filed). The claim shall be taken as filed only when all relevant documents are available. (iii) From the above provisions, it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad has wrongly taken the date of initial submission i.e. 14-2-06 as the date filing of claim and has held that the rebate claim was not hit by time-bar, which appears to be illogical and incorrect in view of the above mentioned provisions. 4. A notice under Section 35EE of Central Excise Act, 1944 was issued to the respondent M/s. Dagger Forst Tools Ltd., Aurangabad who filed their co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARE-1 but has signed the certificate of export. It is certain that non-filing of the details of shipping bill in the certificate at the back side ARE-1 by customs officer is not changing the status of exportation of goods. If at all the Commissioner wanted to be judicious and extend due benefits to applicant, would have given importance to corroborative documents, which are available in the set of refund claim itself. 4.3 Further, the Board has specifically mentioned, which the Asstt. Commissioner and Commissioner have tried to ignore, that In case any document is not available, for which the Central Excise or Customs department is solely accountable, the claim may be received so that the claimant is not hit by limitation period In the instant case, the customs officer has not mentioned all details of shipping bill in the certificate given at back side of the ARE-1. Without any doubt, this is the fault and mistake of the concerned customs officer and not of the noticee. Under these circumstances the Commissioner should have adhere with the above stated guidelines given by the Board and extend the refund to applicant. Whereas it is seen that the Commissioner has purposefully ig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken unreasonable time for scrutiny of the rebate claim i.e. 3 months after the submission is not the fault of the noticee. Further, it is important to be noted here that, noticee has obtained all relevant and necessary documents in proof of physical export of goods out of the country and submitted to the office of the Asstt. Commissioner within time. The Customs officer has not filled all information in the certificate given at back side of the ARE-1 but certified the export, is certainly not a fault of the noticee. It is the responsibility of concerned Govt. official to grant correct and proper certificate to assessee. Further, on pointing out the discrepancy by concerned office i.e the Asstt. Commissioner CE C, if the concerned Customs Officer takes unreasonable time of 2 months to rectify his mistake is again not the fault of noticee. Further, the allegation in the SCN that, the relevant date is the date of resubmission of claim, is not supported by any legal provision. And hence in absence of any legal provision to deny the claim on the grounds of limitation is not sustainable in the Law. As such the claims of rebate has been filed in time under Section 11B of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and the respondent. Government takes up the case for decision on the basis of available records. 6. Government has considered the relevant records of the case, written submissions of both the applicants the respondents and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities. 7. From perusal of records, Government observes that the rebate claims were filed by the respondent on 14-2-06 along with all the supporting documents. However, on scrutiny of the claims, it was observed that all the ARE-1s were not complete in all respects as far as the endorsement of customs department is concerned. Hence all the rebate claims were returned to the respondent on 10-5-06 i.e. after about 3 months whereas as per the instructions given by CBEC Supplementary Instructions Excise Manual at para 3.2 of Chapter 9, the divisional office shall scrutinize the application of refund and intimate the discrepancy, if any, to the assessee within 15 days from the date of application of refund. The respondent after getting the proper endorsement from the Customs Officer resubmitted the claims on 31-7-06. 8. In this regards, Government observes that in para 2.4 of Chapter 9 of Central Excise Manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
