9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Government, therefore holds that non-preparation of statutory document of ARE-1 and not following the basic procedure of export goods as discussed above, cannot be treated as just a minor/technical procedural lapse for the purpose of granting rebate of duty on the materials used in the manufacture of impugned exported goods, no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal, revision application is rejected - - - 450/2011-CX - Dated:- 3-5-2011 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice and is bad in law as well as if facts. 4.2 The impugned order has been passed in complete disregard of the factual position and the submissions of the Applicant. The Respondent has failed to appreciate the facts that in the instant case goods have been exported by air and unlike in case of export by ship, no shipped on board certificate is prepared in case of export by air. The copies of relevant shipping bills and airways bills explicitly show the relevant date of export of goods and also confirm the export of goods. Moreover the Respondent himself admitted the fact that the goods have been exported in the present case in para 5 of the impugned order which is as follow :- These documents are bearing the signatures of the Supe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1-2-2011 Ms. Reena Khair Advocate attended hearing on 1-2-2011 on behalf of the Applicant who reiterated the grounds of Revision Application. No body attended hearing on behalf of Respondent department. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, it is observed that the rebate claim was mainly rejected by lower authorities on the ground that applicant did not submit original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 along with the rebate claim. Now, the Applicant has filed this revision application on the grounds on stated in para 4 above. 8. Government notes that the applicant failed to comply the proper procedure as laid down in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be handed over to exporter who will present the same before customs. The triplicate copy of application will be sent to the office with whom rebate claim is to be filed. There is nothing on record that exporter applicant has either followed the procedure for sealing of goods and examination of goods at place of dispatch either by Central Excise officer or by self-sealing. In the absence of main document ARE-1 and without following the procedure described above, it cannot be established that same goods which were cleared from factory were actually export. Since original ARE-1 is not produced, the duty paid character of goods cannot be established. 9. From above, Government is of the opinion that nature of above requirement is vital as sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
