9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erchant exporter under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the goods manufactured by M/s. Arora Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. During scrutiny of the rebate claims filed by the applicant it was observed that they had filed the copies of the AREs-1 which were not certified by the concerned Customs Authorities regarding export of the goods. For the purpose of sanction of rebate claim the same is required to be filed as per Para 8 of the Chapter 8 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs Manual of Supplementary Instructions. Some other discrepancies with regard to the documents filed along with the rebate claims were also observed. Accordingly the rebate claims were returned to the Applicants, who again filed the same on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns, Invoices, Shipping Bills & Bill of Lading. It is well settled law that unless export of goods or payment of duties is not disputed, the incentive of rebate cannot be denied for technical deficiencies/lapses. 4.3 The Respondent has also failed to consider the submission of the Applicant that the relevant certified copies of ARE-1 were not misplaced during search and seizure conducted in the premises of the Applicant on 28/29-6-2006 by the preventive unit of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana and during the raid the entire record along with computer systems of the Applicant were seized without providing the photocopies of the resumed record at that point of time. 4.4 It is held b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d duplicate ARE-1 duly endorsed by Customs certifying the export of goods, along with the rebate claims and therefore did not comply with the proper procedure as laid down in Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for claiming rebate of duty. Applicant's claim that said ARE-1 were seized by department along with records cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence. 9. Government takes up the issue of non-submission of duly endorsed (by Central Excise/Customs Authorities) original and duplicate copies of respective ARE-1s (in their original forms). Para 3(b) of the Notification No. 19/04-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cument ARE-1, original & duplicate containing certification by Central Excise as well as Customs authorities, it cannot be established that same goods which were cleared from factory were actually exported. The requirement of submission of original and duplicate ARE-1 is to avoid double payment of rebate claim. ARE-1 original and duplicate are the only original documents which are required to be submitted with rebate claim. The copies of other documents are accepted. Since, rebate claim can be filed either by manufacturer or merchant exporter with Maritime Commissioner or jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, so there can be a chance of filing duplicate claim, if claim is accepted without original and duplicate ARE-I. Moreo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able in terms of case laws cited by applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani [2007 (212) E.L.T. 458 (S.C.)] has discussed Sections 63, 64 & 65 of Evidence Act, 1872 and therein upheld the High Court view and held that the photocopies cannot be received as secondary evidence in terms of Section 63 of the Act and they ought not to have been received since the documents in question were admittedly photocopies, there was no possibility of the documents being compared with the originals. Government, therefore holds that non-submission 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
