9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had cleared their goods for export under claim of rebate through Merchant Exporter M/s. Suri International, Karol Bagh, New Delhi against ARE-1 No. 41 dated 10-1-2006, 14 dated 16-6-2006 and 34 dated 14-8-2006. Thereafter they submitted a rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,41,559/- on 5-2-2007 under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. However, upon scrutiny of the concerned export documents filed by them with the rebate claim, it was found that : (i) In case of ARE-1 No. 41 dated 10-1-2006 the claimed export document shipping bill No. 1576856 dated 10-7-2006 and Bill of Lading No. TMILL/DEL/0068/06 dated 15-7-2006 were showing export as per SOB Certificate on 24-7-2006 i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; In ARE-1 No. 41 dated 10-1-2006 and 14 dated 16-6-2006 against above mentioned ARE-1s was not admissible to the party and is thus liable to be rejected. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 7-3-2007 was issued to the party. The adjudicating authority rejected their claim. 3. Being aggrieved with the order of adjudicating authority, the respondent has filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ludhiana who allowed the same. 4. Now aggrieved with the above order of Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ludhiana, the applicant Commissioner has filed this revision application under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before Central Government on the following grounds that : 4.1 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CBEC Central Excise Manual, the self-attested copies of shipping bill, bill of lading are required but the noticee has submitted these documents with crucial particulars like FOB value, invoice value, port of discharge, country of destination and name and address of the consignee etc. as erased/blackened/defaced deliberately. Bereft of such crucial inputs, the rebate sanctioning authority cannot verify the fact of crucial export. The so called export documents are also beyond the stipulated by months period. 5. A Notice under Section 35EE was issued to the respondent M/s. Stanley Products, Ludhiana who failed to submit his counter reply in this regard. 6. Personal hearing scheduled in the case on 16-8-2010, 20-10-2010, 22-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Rule 11 (iv) Self-attested copy of Shipping Bills and (V) Self-attested copy of Bill of Lading (vi) Disclaimer Certificate (in case when claimant is other than exporter) Thus, it is evident that filing of self-attested copies of Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading is a statutory requirement for filing a rebate claim. In the instant case, the respondent has filed the self-attested copies of Shipping Bill and Bill of Lading but after deliberately hiding/erasing the imported/crucial particulars like FOB value, Invoice value, Port of Discharge, Country of Destination, Name and Address of the Consignee etc. On further scrutiny, it is further observed that even amount of foreign exchange receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 12. In view of above discussions and findings, Government observes that the 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 expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
